N PATTABHI RAMAIAH Vs. N KRISHNA MOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants. The suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 20,710/- on the foot of a promissory note dated 25-9-1976 alleged to have been executed by the appellants Nos. 1 and 2. Appellant No. 1 is the father of the other appellants. The appellants constitute a joint Hindu family and are carrying on business in the name and style of Nalluri Pattabhiramayya and Company. The appellants were purchasing tobacco from the respondent and thereby they became indebted to him on that account and also towards hire charges for employing the tractor for ploughing their land and also borrowed some hand loan. The appellants settled the account on 25-9-1976 and the outstanding came to Rs. 16,000/- and accordingly they executed the suit promissory note marked as Ex.A-1. The purpose for which the pronote was executed was clearly mentioned. Before filing the suit a registered notice was also issued on 11-7-1979, office copy of which is marked as Ex.A-2 for which the appellants gave a contentious reply. Hence the suit.

(2.) In the written statement the appellants besides denying the material allegations in the plaint have stated that the suit promissory note was never executed by appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and that it is forged and fabricated. It is also not supported by any consideration.

(3.) In the suit, the respondent examined 4 witnesses including himself as P.W. 1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3; while the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 examined themselves as D.Ws. 1 and 2 besides marking Exs. B-1 to B-6. The trial Court after framing appropriate issues, decreed the suit with future interest. Hence the appeal. The point for consideration is whether the suit pronote is true and if so not supported by consideration? Point:- Sri B.V. Subbaiah, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there is difference in the version contained in the registered notice, Ex.A-2 and the plaint averments. When once the account is settled and the suit pronote is executed, the question of executing two more pronotes as contended by the respondent does not arise. The respondent has not filed any documents to show that his tractor was employed for ploughing, as such adverse inference should be drawn against the respondent. Even the evidence of P. Ws is not inspiring since there is no corroboration on material particulars about the discussion before arriving at the settlement and about the vouchers under Exs.B-1 to B-6. P.W. 2 being the scribe was removed from the service of the appellants and as such his evidence cannot be relied on. In any event, the promissory note contains an alteration in the year from 1977 to 1976, and as such, the instrument is void and unenforceable.