YADIKA VENKATA REDDY Vs. GUJJULA CHINA RAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed O. S. No. 331 of 2008 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Darsi against the appellant for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note, dated 21.04.2008. He pleaded that the appellant is due a sum of Rs. 61,332/- under the promissory note and in spite of demands, he did not pay the amount. In his written statement, the appellant pleaded that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was initially borrowed on 21.04.2002 under a promissory note (marked as Ex. B1), that he paid a sum of Rs. 16,000/- and therafter, executed another promissory note for a sum of Rs. 35,600/- on 21.04.2005 (marked as Ex. B2). According to him, the suit promissory note, dated 21.04.2008 (marked as Ex. A1) is only a document, acknowledging the earlier debt covered by Ex. B1. He pleaded that what becomes payable is only a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with interest thereon and not the one covered by Ex. A1.

(2.) The trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 61,332/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realization. Feeling aggrieved by that, the appellant filed A. S. No. 9 of 2010 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi. The appeal was dismissed on 09.02.2011. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) Sri Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the view taken by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court is untenable and contrary to Section 79 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). He contends that once the principal amount is mentioned in a promissory note, interest becomes payable on that and not with reference to the amounts mentioned in the subsequent promissory notes, if any, relating to the same transaction. He further submits that the trial Court has, on the one hand, proceeded as though Ex. A1 is without any consideration, and on the other hand, passed a decree in favour of the respondent.