THADIKONDA RAMULU FIRM Vs. MALLAVARAPU KASIVISWESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 33 of 1987 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. Plaintiff is the appellant in A.S.No. 721 of 1992 and the defendant is the appellant in A.S.No. 1872 of 1991. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 5,22,353-33ps. which was due on two pronotes and for subsequent interest.

(2.) The plaint averments in brief are as follows: The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. The 2nd defendant is the father of defendants 3 and 4. The first defendant is the firm belonging to defendants 2 to 4 and the 2nd defendant is the managing partner of the 1st defendant-firm. The plaintiff introduced one Pynda Ramkumar, who agreed to advance monies on the understanding that the defendants will repay the amount and that the plaintiff executed pronotes as sureties. The plaintiff is the son-in-law of the 2nd defendant. He executed certain pronotes, the consideration of which was received by the defendants. The defendants were sending monies by drafts or otherwise in the name of Narayana Murthy by opening the account in the Banks. After encashing the TTs. or Drafts Narayana Murthy was paying the amount to Pynda Ramkumar and at his convenience he is taking endorsements made and got signed by the plaintiff. The defendants failed to pay the balance amount due to Pynda Ramkumar. Therefore, he pressurised the plaintiff for the payment of the amounts due to him. In spite of several demands as they could not pay the amounts, therefore, they executed a pronote on 29-8-1986 after calculating the amounts due and payable by them. Accordingly the 2nd defendant executed pronote for a sum of Rs. 4,72,000/- and for Rs. 2,15,000/- on behalf of the 1st defendant-firm and on his behalf as the manager of the joint family agreeing to repay the amount with interest at Rs. 2.50 ps. and Rs. 1.50 ps. respectively per annum. In spite of the repeated demands the defendants have not paid the amount and therefore a notice was issued on 3-10-1986 to which the defendants gave a reply with false allegations. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants filed a written statement denying the execution of pronotes. However, it is stated that no cash consideration was paid. Defendants 3 and 4 also filed a written statement stating that they have not signed the pronotes, Exs.A-20 and A-21. It was alleged that the pronotes are forged by the plaintiff with the assistance of his brother-in-law and his clerk and the recitals of the pronotes are false.