G VENKATA RAMA SUBBAIAH Vs. D RASOOL NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 16-4-1990 in A.S. No.57 of 1988 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool setting aside the judgment and decree dated 8-8-1988 in OS No.21 of 1988 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool. The plaintiff is the appellant

(2.) Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,210/- on the plea that on 1-4-1985 the defendant borrowed Rs.18,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note Ex.A1 agreeing to repay the amount with future interest at 12% per annum. The defendant contested the suit. He is the owner of a printing press. The plaintiff is also owner of a printing press. According to the defendant, the District Collector invited tenders for printing ration cards, the plaintiff and owners of some small printing presses formed themselves into a syndicate and approached the defendant and requested him to file a tender quoting rate at 0-75 paise per card and the plaintiff and other printers would file tenders quoting a higher price and after the lowest tender of the defendant is accepted by the District Collector, he has to entrust printing work to the plaintiff and other members of the syndicate and as a security for the entrustment of that printing work to the plaintiff and others, defendant executed a pronote for Rs.18,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and similar pronotes in favour of other printers on the same day. It is also his case that at the time of finalizing the tenders, the Joint Collector persuaded him to accept the rate at 0-60 paise per card and he agreed for the said proposal. It is also his case that subsequently the District Collector reduced the rate to 0-40 paise per card. According to the defendant, as differences arose between himself and the plaintiff and other printers, the plaintiff filed the suit. Subsequently, he amended his written statement and took the plea that he has verified the suit pronote Ex.Al in the Court and found that it is not the pronote executed by him on 1-4-1985. He pleaded that when he executed the pronote for Rs.18,000/- no interest was stipulated in the said pronote and as per the recitals in Ex.Al pronote there is a stipulation for payment of interest at 12% per annum. Accordingly, he pleaded that the suit pronote Ex.Al is a forged pronote. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court. On a consideration of the entire evidence available on record, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge held that the suit pronote is true, that defendant failed to prove that it is not supported by consideration and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred an appeal before II Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The learned II Additional District Judge concurred with the finding of the Trial Court that the suit pronote Ex.A1 is a genuine pronote. Regarding the consideration, the learned Additional District Judge held that the plaintiff failed to produce his accounts to show that consideration was passed under Ex.Al pronote and, therefore, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that the suit pronote is not supported by consideration. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred the present appeal.

(3.) At the time of admission of this appeal, the learned admission Judge treated the following points formulated in the memorandum of grounds of appeal as substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in the present appeal.