SIRAM SRIRAMA MURTHY Vs. MEKA SURYANARAYANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.01.1999 passed in O.S.No.27 of 1992 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 88,400/- being principal and interest due as on the date of filing of the suit with costs and future interest.

(2.) It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 65,000/- for the purpose of his necessities and executed a promissory note on 01.09.1989 in favour of the plaintiff undertaking to repay the same together with interest thereon at Rs. 1.50 per mensem per hundred to her or her order on demand. The plaintiff issued a notice on 03.08.1992 and the defendant received the same. The defendant issued a reply notice on 08.08.1992 with false allegations. The suit was filed for Rs. 88,400/- calculating interest at 12% p.a., on the original amount of Rs. 65,000/-.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff is the sister of one Bolla Veera Venkata Rama Mohana Rao of Mondepulanka village, the plaintiff in O.S.No.37 of 1992 is the younger brother of the said B.V.V.R. Mohana Rao and the plaintiff in O.S.No.28 of 1992 is the mother of said B.V.V.R. Mohana Rao. All the pronotes were executed on the same date, but the date on the pronote in O.S.No.37 of 1992 was put as 26.10.1989. The plaint allegations are denied. The execution, passing of consideration under the promissory note and the validity of the same are specifically denied by the defendant. It was also stated that the suit promissory note was not true, valid and it is not supported by consideration. The defendant denied the knowledge of the plaintiff and also stated that there are no transactions between him and the plaintiff, but admitted that one B.V.V.R. Mohana Rao has got some transactions with the defendant. The said B.V.V.R. Mohana Rao was stated to be an unscrupulous money lender. It was also stated that the defendant and the said B.V.V.R. Mohana Rao stored the paddy by purchasing with a view to sell the same for higher price and in that transaction the defendant has to pay an amount of Rs. 33,900/- as on 01.09.1988 and interest accrued thereon up to 01.09.1989 came to Rs. 8,136/-. The defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 29.05.1988 and the interest accrued thereon came to Rs. 10,500/- calculated up to 31.08.1989. The defendant further stated that he borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 06.01.1989 and the interest came to Rs. 3,134/- calculated up to 31.08.1989. He also borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 07.01.1989 and the interest came to Rs. 1,564/- as on 31.08.1989. The defendant and the said B.V.V.R. Mohana Rao did business in fire works during Diwali season of 1988. In that connection the defendant borrowed Rs. 8,600/- and the interest came to Rs. 3,612/- calculated up to 31.08.1989. When the said Mohana Rao gave pressure, threatened and coerced the defendant to execute fresh promissory notes on 01.09.1989, he executed the promissory notes in the name of his mother, Bolla Sathemma, W/o Subba Rao for Rs. 43,900/- by putting the excess amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the plaintiff made a material alteration in the said promissory note. The said promissory note is the subject matter of O.S.No.28 of 1992. The promissory note in favour of the present plaintiff was made up of borrowings on different dates and the total interest came to Rs. 26,946/-, out of which the defendant paid an amount of Rs. 4,260/- and the balance interest amount of Rs. 22,686/- remained. He stated that on 01.09.1989, the promissory notes were obtained and the promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff herein and in favour of Bolla Sathemma, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.28 of 1992, are not supported by consideration. He also stated that he executed another promissory note in favour of younger brother of Mohana Rao which is the subject matter of O.S.No.37 of 1992. Thus, the promissory notes under three suits being O.S.Nos.27 of 1992, 28 of 1992 and 37 of 1992 were not supported by consideration, they were not executed, they were not valid and they were not enforceable under law. The alleged attesting witnesses were not present at the time of execution of the promissory notes and the attesting signatures were subsequently obtained without the knowledge of the defendant. So, the said promissory notes were vitiated by material alterations. The defendant is entitled to the benefit of Act 45 of 1987 and also Act 1 of 1990 and other enactments. The suit debt even if it is true was abated.