BOGGARAPU SUBBA GURUVAIAH Vs. DOMIPADU PRAHALLADA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT The unsuccessful plaintiff in OS No.63 of 1981 is the appellant. The appellant-plaintiff instituted the suit referred to supra on the strength of a promissory note dated 2.9.1978.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant-plaintiff that the 1st respondent-1st defendant as manager of the joint family borrowed a sum of Rs.18,000/- from one Shaik Abdul Khader s/o Mohd. Hussain, A.Kodur village, Nandyal Taluq and executed a demand promissory note in his favour on 2.9.1978 at Nandyal promising to repay the same with an interest at 1.7 ps. per cent and the 1st respondent-1st defendant had not paid any amount due under the aforesaid promissory note. It was also further pleaded that the said Shaik Abdul Khader had transferred the said promissory note debt for consideration in favour of the appellant-plaintiff at Nandyal on 21.8.1981 and made an endorsement on the reverse of the promissory note and simultaneously he had assigned the said debt by executing an assignment deed and thus the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount. Since the 1st respondent-1st defendant had not made any payment towards the said promissory note debt, the appellant-plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice and subsequent thereto had instituted the present suit. It was also further pleaded that since the amount was borrowed for joint family necessity, the 2nd respondent-2nd defendant also was impleaded as a party, being the son of the 1st respondent-1st defendant. It was also pleaded that the appellant-plaintiff came to know that the 1st respondent-1st defendant had created a partition deed showing as to the division between the 1st respondent-1st defendant and the 2nd respondent-2nd defendant and the said partition deed is only a sham and nominal document intended to defraud the creditors.

(3.) The 1st defendant filed a detailed written statement. In para 4 of the written statement a specific stand was taken by the 1st defendant stating that the allegations in para 4 of the plaint are specifically denied. It was also further pleaded that the said Shaik Abdul Khader has absolutely no means to lend any amount much less the huge sum of Rs. 18,000/- and the appellant-plaintiff is also put to strict proof of the capacity of Shaik Abdul Khader to lend such amount. In para 5 of the written statement, the 1st defendant had pleaded as follows: "5. This defendant being given to bad company is addicted to drink and gambling. The said Shaik Abdul Khader, this defendant and one Yelisetty Subramanyam used to indulge in gambling with high stakes. When this defendant was in a drunken state, the said Shaik Abdul Khader might have obtained a promissory note said to be due in the activity of gambling from this defendant. It is relevant to submit that the other person Yelisetty Subramanyam had also obtained such similar promissory note from this defendant, the previous date i.e. 1.9.1978 for a similar sum of Rs.18,000/- said to be due in the activity of gambling".