KANAJAM DHANA LAKSHMI Vs. PERNI MANIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff before the learned trial Court filed this second appeal under Sec. 100 C.P.C. The respondent herein was the 1st defendant before the learned trial Court. O.S.No.85 of 2003 was a suit on promissory note seeking for recovery of money. That was filed by the plaintiff as against three defendants arraying them as defendant Nos.1 to 3. After due trial, the learned Senior Civil Judge at Avanigadda decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff directing defendant No.1 to pay the suit debt along with interest and costs. The suit against defendant Nos.2 and 3 was dismissed. Defendant No.1 thereafter filed A.S.No.180 of 2006 showing the plaintiff as respondent No.1 and learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District allowed the appeal upsetting the trial Court's judgment and as a consequence, it dismissed the suit as against defendant No.1 also. Aggrieved against that, the plaintiff in the suit has come up with this appeal. Before adverting to the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal, it is necessary to see how the legal proceedings took place before both the Courts below.

(2.) In her plaint, the plaintiff alleged that defendant No.3 is father and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are his sons. They constitute a Hindu joint family. To meet the family expenses, agricultural expenses and business development, defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.75,000.00 from her on 5/12/2000 and executed the promissory note agreeing to repay with 18% interest per annum as and when demanded. Despite demands, there was no repayment. A legal notice dtd. 11/8/2003 was got issued and a reply notice dtd. 16/8/2003 was received by the plaintiff. Since the defendants did not repay and since the debt was meant for joint family, the suit was laid as against all the three defendants for recovery of Rs.1,07,662.0050 ps. and interest and costs.

(3.) Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and defendant No.3 filed a written statement and defendant No.2 filed a memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.3. In his written statement, defendant No.1 denied the plaint mentioned averments and denied borrowal of money from the plaintiff and denied execution of the suit pronote. Impleading of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is misjoinder and suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground. It is stated that this defendant never saw the plaintiff at all and did not have even fair chances of any acquaintance with her. It was only on receiving notices from the plaintiff, this defendant had made enquiries and it was found that she was mother-in-law of Sri Pothula Siva Sankar Babu. It is that Pothula Siva Sankar Babu, who is the master mind behind this litigation, and he got fabricated the pronote and got the suit filed through the plaintiff with a view to cause wrongful loss to this defendant. It is then stated that this answering defendant and his family members had no need of having financial assistance from anybody and on enquiries it was found that the plaintiff had no financial capacity to lend money. It is ridiculous to allege that a junior member of the family would have contracted debts for the benefit of joint family while kartha of the family is at the helm of affairs. The suit pronote is not supported by consideration. It is stated that above referred Pothula Siva Sankar Babu and this answering defendant have been at logger-heads in the last three years and in the year 2003 during July he threatened the mother of this defendant with dire consequences and accosted that he would drag on to the Court. The scribe and attestors of the pronote were henchmen of the plaintiff. For those reasons he sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.