CHALASANI SEETHARAMA SWAMY Vs. CHINTAPALLI RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in O. S. No. 21 of 1979, dated 1-7-1982. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The reference to the parties as in the status they occupy in the trial Court would be convenient and therefore, it would be done accordingly. The facts and circumstances leading to this appeal may be stated in brief initially:

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 30,670/- and interest of Rs. 670/- with costs and such other reliefs as may be granted by the Court. The defendant resisted the suit. It appears that the defendant addressed a letter to the plaintiff dated 14-7-1976 requesting him to advance monies as he required it for payment to one Tammareddy Krishna Murthy for his tobacco cultivation in his village as he had no money with him to lend. It appears that subsequently he approached the plaintiff and collected Rs. 30,000/- from him in cash on 11-9-1976 and passed on a receipt in his favour evidencing the transaction. It is alleged that the defendant promised him to repay it by March, 1977 and that in spite of repeated demands, he did not pay it. After issuing a Registered notice dated 4-12-1978 without any response, or avail, the plaintiff had to file the present suit for the reliefs stated above.

(3.) THE defendant in his written statement denied the loan transaction pleaded in the plaint inasmuch as his liability to pay the amount. While admitting that he has addressed a letter to the plaintiff dated 14-7-1976 the defendant pleaded that since Krishna Murthy, a relative of the plaintiff, needed money on his behalf, he approached the plaintiff to pay the money to the said person. He has contended that he never undertook any responsibility under the transaction for repayment of the said amount or for securing the payment of the money by Krishna Murthy. It appears that ultimately the plaintiff advanced Rs. 30,000/- to the defendant on his recommendation letter inasmuch as on the basis of the receipt executed by him on 11-9-1976. The defendant has pleaded that at the relevant time he was working as Assistant Engineer, R and Bat Gudivada and to avoid embarrassment to Krishna Murthy, who is a close relative of the plaintiff, he executed a receipt as stated above purporting to be the document evidencing the receipt of money for being paid to Krishna Murthy and for no other purpose. Therefore, it is contended that no pronote or any document came into existence evidencing the said transaction. It is also contended by the defendant that Krishna Murthy having taken the loan from the plaintiff as stated above, discharged it by transfer of his land measuring Acs. 1-30 cents situated at Amalapuram in favour of the fostered son of the plaintiff and thus the said debt has been fully discharged. Therefore, the defendant pleaded for dismissal of the suit with costs.