MANDALA APPA RAO Vs. PINNINTI SREEDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in O.S.No.99 of 1983 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry are the appellants.

(2.) Respondent filed the above suit against the appellants for recovery of Rs.11,828/- being the principal and interest due under the promissory note dated 10-9- 1980 executed by them in favour of Jyosyula Dakshayani for Rs.8,000.00which was transferred for consideration in her favour on 12-2-1983. The case of the appellant is that he did not borrow the amount covered by the suit promissory note and that infact they borrowed only Rs.5,000.00 from Dakshayani on 1-9-1980 and executed a registered mortgage bond in her favour and that the suit promissory note must have been brought into existence by using of the- blank stamped papers on which they had signed at the time of execution of the mortgage bond in favour of Dakshyani since it was stated that those papers would be returned to them when the mortgage debt is discharged. When Dakshyani sent a notice demanding payment of the amount covered by the suit promissory note they sent a reply thereto. Thereafter respondent, in collusion with Dakshayani and her husband, obtained a transfer of the suit promissory note. Respondent has no capacity to pay Rs.11,000/-.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings two issues were settled for trial by the trial Court. In support of her case, the respondent examined four witnesses as P.Ws.l to 4 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the appellants, the 2nd appellant was examined as D.W.I and Exs.B-1 to B-6 were marked. The trial Court held that the suit promissory note is true and valid and decreed the suit. Appeal preferred by the appellants to the Court of the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in A.S.No.127 of 1986 was dismissed. Hence this second appeal.