METHUKU RAVINDRANATH Vs. SURE KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole plaintiff in OS No. 12 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur. He filed the suit against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 1,84,732/-, on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed by the respondent on 1.7.2000. It was pleaded that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, on that date, agreeing to repay the amount, with interest at 18%, per annum. It was also pleaded that the respondent made part payment of a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, on 21.5.2003, and made an endorsement on the reverse of the promissory note. The appellant stated that though he got issued a notice, on 30.5.2005, the amount was not repaid by the respondent. The respondent filed a written statement, denying the very allegation as to borrowing of the amount and execution of the promissory note. He stated that he is a trader in medicines and that in the year 2000, he purchased medicines worth about Rs. 2,00,000/- from one Mr. Pandurangaiah of Pileru and for repayment of that amount, he executed two promissory notes of Rs. 1,00,000/-, each. He stated that the amount covered by those two promissory notes was paid in the year 2003, in the presence of M/s. J. Subbaraja and S. Murali, and when he made a request to Pandurangaiah to return the promissory notes, the latter replied that the promissory notes and cheques are mixed up with other papers and that he would return them as soon as he locates them. He submitted that the suit appears to have been filed by the appellant in collusion with Pandurangaiah and that similar exercise was done by one Mr. G. Adinarayana, who filed OS No. 94 of 2005 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. The respondent got amended the written statement, and he stated that the blank in the promissory note executed by him in favour of Pandurangaiah was filled with the name of the appellant and that there is collusion between Pandurangaiah and the appellant.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment dated 30.11.2007. Thereupon, the appellant filed AS No. 20 of 2008 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The appeal was dismissed on 27.7.2009. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) Sri S.V. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that once the signature on Ex. A1 was found to be that of the respondent, the suit ought to have been decreed. He contends that instead of drawing the presumption as provided for under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have denied the relief, on the ground that some of the blanks in the promissory note were filled with typewriting. According to the learned Counsel, the fact that a portion of the document is written through mechanical typing, cannot lead to an inference as to alteration of the contents.