KUNAPAREDDI NANCHARAYYA Vs. SEETHALA RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 and2 in O. S. No. 39 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gudivada are the appellants.

(2.) RESPONDENT filed the suit against the appellants for recovery of the principal and interest due on the promissory note dated 24. 3. 1978 executed by the appellants in favour of J. Venkata Krishna Rao for Rs. 10,400/- as transferee for consideration. Appellants filed their written statement admitting that 1st appellant executed the suit promissory note dated 24. 3. 1978 in favour of J. Venkata Krishna Rao or Rs. 10,400/- and contending that 2nd appellant did not execute the suit promissory note and that the promissory note was executed by 1st appellant in renewal of a promissory note dated 25. 3. 1975 for Rs. 8,000/ -. It is their contention that 1st appellant actually borrowed an amount of Rs. 4,000/- and since the interest stipulated was 37 1/2 % with yearly rests and since the provisions of A. P. Act of 4 of 1938 apply to that borrowings, with a view to get over the provisions of the said Act, the promissory note was taken for a sum of Rs. 8,0007- by showing the interest as 12% and that, the suit promissory note was taken in the name of J. Venkata Krishna Rao with a view to make it appear as a different transaction in order to avoid scaling down of the interest as per the provisions of A. P. Act of 1938. The Trial Court framed four issues and three additional issues for trial. In support of his case, the respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-7. The appellants examined themselves as D. Ws. 1 and 2 respectively and marked Exs. B1 to B2. The Trial Court disbelieving the evidence of the appellants decreed the suit.

(3.) THE point for consideration is whether the respondent is entitled to recover the amount covered by the suit promissory note?