Pulusu Venkanna v. Jakkula Vijaya Laxmi

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in o.S No-22/ 2021 on the file of the Senior civil Judge Court, SuryaPet. CounSCI fOT thE PEtitiONET: SRI PASNOORU ANANTH AATHREYASA Counsel for the Respondent: CH. SRINIVASULU The Court made the following: ORDER i I i I i i i :#7 T'IlI! IJONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADH.{ RANI (.- IVTL RE WSION PETITION No.54 2 of 2025 ORDER: This C ir iI Revision petition is filed by t,e p,etiti,rner-defendant aggrieved br rhe order dated20.01.2025 passed in O.S No.22 of 2021 by the Senior ( i'i Judge, Suryapet, holding the docurne.: dated 16.02.201g as promissory 'ote and marking it as Ex.A4 during the chir.f examination of PW. 1 2' 'r-lrc racts of the case in brief are that the n.spo rdenrpraintiff filed the srir rirr rccovery of money of Rs.20,30,000/_ allcl,ed to be due under a pro-note 'rhe plaintiff contended that she rvas u ser.ior citizen of 73 years of a 3-:, T'he defendant was doing Rear Estate rrusi ress and as a parl of his :r,si r:ss, he approached the plaintiff and pu-cha.ied the lands from the tl rlrtilT at Reddygudem village for ;onsideration of Rs.25,00,00t)/.. lle paid part of the amount and statcd tlrat Le would pay the balance ir.r()urI of Rs.14,00,000/_ with interest (g) lgro p,]r annum on demand ,.rd c,,,,,i,rced her that it would be useful fbr the plarntild as she was at her advlLttr-'r:'l age' The plaintiff agreed for the same and the terms of the agreemerrt vr.t:r.t: r'educed into writing on a non_judicia sta np paper of Rs.20l- on 16,.(,i 2(r1g. The defendant signed on the said iLgret,ment in the a 2 DZGRR, J CRP N0.512 of 202s presence of witnesses and agreed to repay the amount with interest as and when demanded'

3. The contention of the plaintiff was that the defendant paid interest till the month of December' 2018 as agreed and thereafter failed to pay the same' as such' the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated rz.o4.2ozr demanding the defendant to discharge the entire debt. The defendant gave a reply on 04'05'2021 demanding to supply the photocopy of the pro-note' Accordingly' the plaintiff fumished the copy of the pro- note on 26.O5.2l2l,but as the defendant failed to respond to the same nor paid any amount, filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs'20'30'000/-' on the principal amount of Rs'14'00'0001 by calculating interest @ lSYo per annum from January, 2019 to lrrry'202lto an amount of Rs'6'30'000/-'

4. The defendant filed written statement denying purchase of the land from the plaintiff and also the execution of the document as stated by the plaintiff' He denied that the signature on the document belonged to him. He also further contended that the suit was barred by limitation'

5. The trial coul1 on framing the issues' had taken the matter for llt,Fry 3 Dt.GRR, J CRP No.542 of202S

6. 'l'h: plaintiff filed her evidence affidavit a,ri got filed the alleged agrcerri),l. dated 16.02.201g to mark the same rs arr exhibit. The defendant tork r r objection for marking the said docum:nr contending that it was a bonrl. b lt not a promissory note and that ucc,essiu.y sr_amp duty was not paid uporr rl

7. I ltc rrial coufi, on hearing both the learned coursel appearing for the parlie; ;L rr taking into consideration the citations reJir,d by both the parties, consideled the document as a promlssory note ani I marked the same as Ex.A4 u. ,r,g1:- eved by the said order passed by tlic rrial couft in holding the dr.:u nrent as a promlssory note, the delendrrnt pref-erred this revlslon.

9. Jlr.ar j Sri K. Sai Teja the leamed oourse rcpresenting Sri P. Anartlr /, rt.reya, leamed counsel on record ibr :he revision petitioner and lir.i - h. Srinivasulu, leamed counsel for the resl.rc,ndent. 1 0. ! t at.l e,d counsel for the petitioner r:ontt-rcie C that the documcnt dated 6.02.201g was primarily acknowledging rlue amount under a real esrare rransaction. The said document dated 16.c2.201g was not a promissc.v lrote as alleged and found by the trirLl c.uft but an I I I i i i : I i I t 4 DI.CRR, J CRP No.542 of2025 acknowredgment of debt with a condition to pay with interest as and wten demanded. Merely because there was the word 'demand' in the document' it courd not be considered as a promissory note. The document had to be read as a whole to decide the nature of the document' As per the pleadings' the amount was lent but as per the document' the dmount was due to be paid. The document dated 16'02'2018 had to be stamped with higher stamp duty payable on it' The trial court lailed to see that when the document .agreement, and there was an agreement to pay interest was named as an and amount was said to be due under an earlier transaction and attested by witnesses, it could not be termed as a promissory note' The trial court failed to see that the document dated 16'02'2018 was an acknowledgment of debt/bond and has to be charged with higher stamp duty and prayed to set aside the order dated 20.0r.2025 passed by the leamed Senior civil Judge, SuryaPet in O'S No'22 of 2021'

11. The leamed counsel for the respondenrplaintiff' on the other hand, contended that the petitioner-defendant received an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- from the respondent and promised to pay the said amount with interest @ lf%per annum' The document contains all the ingredients of a promissory ngte as dehned under Negotiable Instruments Act' The petitioner taking advantage of the respondent's innocence' health condition' '"{gq,:F--ry 5 DLGRR, J CRP No.512 of202S old age, \vas ( ragging the matter unnecessarily. Haivin1., received the principal an<l r:,r id paft payment, he was now dispuring taki-rg the amount with a mala'rde intention and approached the courl uith ,,rcrean hands with an inr.ention to evade payment due to the responcent and prayed to disrnissthe(RD l2 l)rr.-lrried the record and the disputed documerrt,

13. "h: disputed document is titled as an ,.agr.eenrent,,. It was dated 16.02.21r lt, tt was alleged to be executed by, thg det.endant. The names of th,: Jrcr.rons, who executed the document anrl the.pcrrion on whose behalf the d(rcur-r *1 was executed were arso mentioned in the document. It was also sr,e,:i fi.,l with regard to the nature of the drlc.r rcnt that the executant h.d irltrr.ed to purchase Acs.2.05 gts., of land t,elorrging to Smt. Jakkula viiar.ri t-r<shmi (praintiff) in Sy. No.30laa and l00i,a. located in Reddygude,r \ ill ,rge, Maddirala Mandal for a sale :o,: ideration of Rs.25,00,00(ri- trc!. acre and out of the said amount, he i{a.e the amount other than Rs.ll r)0,000/- and for the balance amount ot Rs 14,00,000/_, agreed to pal i ircr e,st @ Rs. 1 .50 ps., per month and that he rvor rld repay the same as and wirc..r 'rcmanded. It was alreged to be sig.ed rr1,tl,e delendant in the presenc:c of lrvo rvitnesses. 6 DT.GRR,J CRP No.542 of2025 o

14. Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act' 1881 dehnes a 'promissory note' as an instrument in writing containing an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person or to the bearer, on demand or at a fixed time signed by the maker' The title of the document is not decisive to decide the nature o[ iht do"u-ent' The contents of the document need to be looked into to decide the nature of the document. As the contents of the document would disclose that for the amount ofRs.14,00,0001 liable to paid by the defendant' he agreed to pay thc same with interest @ Rs'1'50 ps', per month and agreed to repay the same as and when demanded by the plaintifL As such, the document would disclose that there was an unconditional promise to repay a fixed amount on demand by the plaintiff which was signed by the borrower' As such, the document would comply the ingredients of the promissory note' l5.AbondisdefinedunderSection2(5)ofthelndianStampAct, 1899 as a written instrument whereby a person obtiges himsell to pay money to another on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed' As such, there must be a conditional obligation to pay and the same was not necessarily negotiable' The document does not appear to have any conditionality or penalty clause typically found in the bonds. -7 7 Dt.cRR. J CRP i'o. Sa 2 oJ 2025

16. J lc rvcver, the document was executed ,tn a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. j( r_. The stamp duty payable for a p,16nl [55or.y note is prescribed ir, Scl,edule l_A of the Indian Stamp Act. tg1)9. as applicable to Telangana is lts. t/_ for every Rs.1,000/_ or parl ther.eof pay rble otherwise than on dernrrrrrr r-he stamp duty must be paid at trre ti're o f execution o1. document. I'aij r"e to do so will result in a penalty. ,ro;. rn amount of Rs'14,00,000i- rr3 duty payabrewiil be Rs. 1,400/-. As the ar3reementwas executed on a rru_.judicial stamp paper which wls an under_stamped instrument' '.rr': s:r.re courd not have been admitted in evidencr,by trre courl below without payrnent of the deficit stamp duty anrl 111 n2l1y. The objections as t'r the stamp duty have to be decided the. anrl tirer.e and could not be postporrerl ,o a subsequent stage. The trial ,:ourt th,rugh rightly considered the nat rre of the document as a promissory l10t(:, lailcd to direct the plaintiff to r:r the necessary stamp duty on the docurner.rr along with penalty' The oi'r r': '''ation of the trial court that the obje,:ti'ris could be decided at the tr rn: ol. arguments, is not permissible. As the sante was erroneous and u a's r.1 in accordance with law, the order of r.he t.iar courl is liable to be set aiick on this ground. 17 ' In thc resujt, the civil Revision petition is arou ed setting aside the orde" ,fitt:rl 20.01.2025 passed in O.S. No.22 o,.2021 by the i I 8 Dt.GRR' t CRP No'512 of 2025 : Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet in marking the disputed document as Ex'A4 and directed the same to be imPounded and to collect necessary stamp duty and penalty on the same and to mark it as an exhibit only after payment of the deficit stamp duty and penalty' No order as to costs' Miscellaneous Applications pending' if any' shall stand closed' SD/. MOHD,ISMAIL DE UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. Senior Civil Judge Court at Suryapet 2. One CC to SRI PASNOORU ANANTH AATHREYASA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI CH. SRINIVASULU Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies SS 1ftfr tiull) .. 1 HIGH COUIR'r DATED:091A6t2025 ORDER CRP.No.S4',2 <tl 2O2S ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT CC.ISTS @t{'' rt ("g