SRIRAMULU Vs. MUTHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal calls for the determination of a question of fact. G. Sriramulu whom I refer as money - lender, laid the suit for recovery of Rs. 19.500/- from Ch. Muthaiah, a brick-layer. It is the case of the money-lender who transported ''mud" and "husk" foruse of bricks through his vehicle:, APP 5963, AAC 4903 and APS 2752. The brick-layer under Ex. A 1 on October 17, 1^78 promised to supply 1,50,000 bricks to him at the rate of Rs.90/-- per thousand and failed to do so. Hence, the suit was laid for the return of Rs 13.500/- paid under Ex. A -- 1 and damages were claimed against him for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- which were ascertained at prevailing rate on the date of the suit on October 24, 1978 as at Rs 130/- per thousand. The damages were ascertained by the difference oi Rs 130-90 for the bricks to be supplied. The brick-layer denied to have received Rs. 13.500/- He denied to have signed Exl A - 1. He disputed the genuineness of Ex. A-1 and he averted it is a forged document. He also disputed the quantum of damages.

(2.) A-1 document is scribed by the Kurada Silaram Sarma, the Karnam of Mylavaram Village. K. Gopalswamy and N. Sambasivudu, the two are the attestors who are brick - Layers of the same village. The money-lender and his father Tirupathaiah are also residents of the same village. Tee brick-layer in his defence added that he was originally a resident of Veeravalli village in Madhira taluk in Khammam district. He migrated in 1968 to Mylavaram where he was vending "Pakodas" and like esiables, on a push-cart. He needed money for his business and he borrowed Rs. 750/- from Tirupathaiab by pledging his push-cart, executed a promissory note for Rs- 500/- with interest for Rs. 750/- at 36%. The brick layer returned the principal amount ol Rs. 750/- and Rs 251/- towards interest. When he demanded the return of the push-cart nnd the promissory note, Tirupathaiah insisted that the brick - layer to pay Rs. 1,500/- and unless he had paid the amount, push cart and the promissory note were not lo be returned to him. When he failed, he was threatened by Tirupathaiah to involve him in serious litigations and wreak vengeance against him. It is his case, (hereafter, A- I was forged, the suit is laid. As to bricks, he averred, he owned three parcels of agricultural land in his orginal village, Yeeravalli. One parcel was sold to Yadamuri for Rs 2000/- snother to Mutyalu for Rs 2,000 and the third was sold to Y. Venkateswarlu for Rs 6.000/- in or about the year 1978, and, thereafter, he started manufacturing bricks in kilns. He invested Rs 6.200/- purchased husk for Rs 975/- and manufactured seven lakhs of bricks in five kilns. He received A - 2 notice before the suit on October, 17, 1978. He gave a reply A - 4 on October, 26, 1978, The Suit was laid on October 24, 1978.

(3.) In support of his case, the brick-layer examined himself, the money-lender was examined, Tirupathaiah was not examined, The moneylender examined the Karnam of Mylavaram village who scribed A-1 and the two attestors. In so simple a suit, curiously, the issue framed as to the truth of A-1 was wrongly framed. Further, no issue was framed as to the rate of bricks on the date of the suit. The lower Court, however, in the judgment under appeal, understood the burden in corrective perspective to be on the money-lender and on a consideration of the evidence, dismissed the suit. Hence the appeal by the money-lender,