KOYI HARI BABU Vs. KANUMURI SUBBARAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT The unsuccessful defendant in SC No.35 of 1991 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, is the revision petitioner. The respondent in the civil revision petition is the plaintiff in the suit. The parties hereafter will be referred for convenience as plaintiff and the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,590.00 with subsequent interest and costs. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant for his necessities borrowed an amount of Rs.5,000.00 and executed a promissory note dated 24-5-1989 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 15% per annum in favour of one Bachina Subba Rao and inspite of repeated demands made by the said Subba Rao, both personally and through mediators, the defendant did not pay the amounts. On 19-4-1991 the said Subba Rao transferred the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of the said transfer endorsement on the reverse of the promissory note, Ex.A1 and the transfer endorsement is marked as Ex.A2. Immediately after the transfer, the plaintiff had informed the same to the defendant and had demanded for repayment. The plaintiff got issued Ex.A3 notice dated 30-4-1991 for which a reply dated 5-5-1991 (Ex.A-4) was given.

(3.) The defendant filed his written statement denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that his brother by name Venkatesham and himself, had divided more than three years back from his brother and as such he has been inimical towards his brother and he is having only an extent of Ac.2.70 cents which he got in partition with his brother and he had never borrowed any amount from the said Subba Rao. The suit promissory note is a forged one and his brother might have used the blank stamp paper which he had obtained while they were joint, filed for the purpose of obtaining loan from the bank and the suit promissory note is brought into existence in such circumstances.. It is also further pleaded that the defendant is a small farmer and an agriculturist having an extent of Ac.2.70 cents and the plaintiff being a cattle dealer and cotton business dealer earning not less than Rs.5,000.00 every year for the last nine years, he cannot be said to be a small farmer; whereas the defendant is a small farmer entitled to the benefits of Act 45 of 1987.