(1.) The Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in O.S.258/78 dated 26-12-1983 is assailed by the defendant in the suit who is the appellant herein, the respondent being the plaintiff. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.21,201-39 with costs, interest etc. The suit is based upon a pronote dated 31-8-1975 executed by the defendant agreeing to repay the amount on demand with interest at 18% per annum. Rs.200/- were paid oh 4-9-1977 regarding which an endorsement was made on the pronote. Since the balance was not paid in spite of repeated demands, the plaintiff had to file the suit. Ex.A-1 is the suit pronote. While admitting that he has executed the suit pronote and paid Rs.200/- on 4-9-1977 towards part payment, as per endorsement, Ex.A-2, he contended that no cash consideration passed at the time of the suit pronote as there was already a transaction between them wherein he had made several payments like Rs.1,000/- on 22-7-1970, Rs.1,000/- on 3-9-1971, Rs.1,000/- on 6-4-1972, Rs.400/- on 3-7-1972, Rs.1,000/- on 21-5-1973, Rs.1000/- on 10-2-1975 and Rs.500/- on 16-5-1975 and he wanted these payments to be endorsed on the back of the pronote. He also contended that he is an agriculturist and entitled to the benefit of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (Act No.IV of 1938 for short 'the Act') whereby the interest cannot be as claimed by the plaintiff. During the trial both oral and documentary evidence was adduced on both sides wherein the plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 1 and defendant examined himself as D.W.I. Exs.A-1 to A-27 were marked for plaintiff and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked for the defendant. With these materials and after hearing both sides, the learned Subordinate Judge did not believe the part payments alleged by the defendant, held that the suit pronote is supported by consideration and further held that defendant is not entitled to the benefit of the Act and held that the rate claimed by the plaintiff is not usurious, but awarded interest in the manner mentioned in the decree. However, the decree provided for deduction of Rs.3,000/- paid by the defendant on 13-9-1978 during .the pendency of the suit, Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree as above, the defendant by raising several contentions in the memorandum of appeal supplemented by the learned senior Advocate Sri T.Veerabhadrayya has pursued this appeal.
(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge has given ample reasons supported by the materials in rejecting the plea of the defendant about the suit pronote having no consideration and having come out under the circumstances pleaded by him. Even assuming that no consideration passed under the suit pronote and the defendant executed it for a consideration which he had borrowed from the plaintiff's father, that would be still good consideration and good discharge as against the existing consideration. Secondly, the learned Subordinate Judge has assessed both oral and documentary evidence in this regard correctly and has come to the correct conclusion and this Court in a first appeal like this, should not disturb such finding which is supported by reasons and materials.
(3.) Regarding certain payments, said to have been made on different dates, the learned Subordinate Judge has rightly disbelieved for want of materials and want of any endorsement anywhere. Even assuming that there were such payments, it is for the defendant to prove it either by examining the plaintiff's father or by producing independent evidence. Even regarding this finding, there is no reason to interfere with it.