GUDIVADA MAHALAKSHMI Vs. RAJANA ATCHAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1997 passed in A.S. No.10 of 1991 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chodavaram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1990 passed in OS No.421 of 1987 by the learned District Munsif, Narasipatnam, the present Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,580.00 with subsequent interest, from the defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,000.00 for purchasing an engine and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6% p.a. When the defendant failed to repay the amount inspite of several demands, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 16.12.1986, which was replied by the defendant with false contentions on 12.3.1986, the plaintiff came up with the suit. The plaintiff also claims that her husband died and she is having five sons and one daughter and the family has only Ac.5.00 of land, of which Ac.3.00 is dry land and as such she is having only l/42nd share in the property and as such the suit does not abate under the provisions of A.P. Act 45 of 1987. It is further averred that the defendant is not a small farmer inasmuch as he is having Ac. 10.00 of land of which Ac.5.00 is wet land and he is having one son.

(3.) A written statement was filed by the defendant denying borrowing of amounts for the purpose of purchasing engine, as he is already having an engine. It is the case of the defendant that one Gudivada Rajababu, son of the plaintiff, is acquainted with him and since he requested to sell away the engine which he had, the defendant took Chitrada Bangara Raju and Maddu Appalaidu to Mr. Gudivada Rajababu, and the bargain was settled at Rs.4,000.00 and agreed that the engine would be purchased after deducting the cost of repairs and paid Rs.100.00 as advance money. Since the entire consideration amount was not paid, Mr. Rajababu insisted for security and when the intending purchasers agreed to execute a pro-note, Mr. Rajababu did not agree for the same and as such the defendant had to execute the suit promissory note in favour of his mother i.e., the plaintiff. Thus the suit promissory note is not supported by any consideration.