The High Court · 2025

Judgment

THE H()NOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANT IiECOND APPEAL No.1249o f2004 JUDG MENT: This Seconl Appeal is filed by the appetlant - appellant - defendant aggrieved by the udgment and decree dated 24 '03 '2004 passed in l' S'No' 106 of 200i by the t':arned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge ( Fast Track Court), Nizamab rd confirming the judgment and decree dated 16 04'2003 passed in O.S.No 70 rf 1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge' Nizarnabad'

2. The respordent is the plaintiff and the parties are hereinafter rel'erred as anayed before tl-r I trial court' 1'he ptaint rlf filed the suit for recovery of money of Ib'68'800/- with 3. future interest 'ri 2'1' per month on the decretal amount The plaintifT averred that he gave th': dr:lendant a sum of Rs'40'000/- as loan on 2i'07 1993 at Nizamabad in tt e pr':sence of hro witnesses by name Sri B'l l Rai Copal Rao and Sri L.Sreedhar and the defendant executed a promissory note or 27 07'1993 iniavoroithepaintiffatNizamabadforthesaidloanamountagret,ingtorepay the same on lernand along with interest @ 2 7o interest per month' Subsequcntly, rrhen lhe plaintiff approached the defendant and demanded her to repay thc loan amotrnt. she dodged the matter' She failed to pa!' any amount to 2 Dr.GRR, J sz_1249 2OO4

the plaintiff for nearly three (03) years. As such filed the suit for an amount of Rs.68,800/- for the principal amount of Rs.40,000/_ and inrerest @ 2 % per month on the same from 27 .07 .1993 to 26.07 .1996 (for a period of three years), which comes to Rs.2g,g00/_ 4' The defendant fired written statement contending that she was running a school in the name and style of Suryodaya Convent at Nizamabad. The plaintiff worked in the said institution as a private teacher. A person by name Sreedhar, who was shown as an attestor of the suit document worked as principal in the above institution since long time. The plaintiff was related to him. The relationship between the said Sreedhar and the defendant was strained. Due to which, the plaintiff fired the present suit to herp the said Sreedhar. She further submitted that the praintiff used to receive sarary whenever he required in a lump sum manner. Thus, the defendant had to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/_ to the plaintiff for which the defendant executed the document. Later on. on different occasions, the amount was paid to the plaintiff. The praintiff received the same through bank withdrawals_ Later on, he executed a receipt on 1g.04. 1996 in favor of the defendant acknowledging the entire amount reccived by him instead of retuming the suit promissory note. In the month of June, 1996, theplaintiff left the institution of the defendant and in the month of Jury, 1gg6 fired the present suit and prayed to dismiss the suit. Dr.GR&J sa 1249 2O04

5.Basingonhesrridpleadings,thetrialcourtframedtheissuesasfollows: (i) Whether tle repayment and discharge pleaded by the defendant are true? (ii) To rvhat re iief l

6.TheplaintLil.examinedhimsetfasPw.landgotmarkedtheoriginal promissory nore datcd 27.07.1993 as Ex.Al, the receipt dated 27 07.1993 as Ex.A2, a photc',-t opr o1' the receipt dated 18.04' 1996 for Rs' 1 5,6-55 L as Ex'A3 and the terminati:n order dated 25.03.1993 as Ex'A4' The defcndant examined herself as DW. I rnd 5;ot marked the receipt dated 18.04.1996 as Ex.Il1. She got examined one o'the attestors of Ex.Bl as DW.2 and the scribe of Ex.Bl as DW.3.

7. On considerinS; the oral and documentary evidence on rccord. the trial court held that hc rlef'endant faited to estabtish the repayment c f discharge pteaded by her, r-s su,:h decreed the suit for Rs.40,0004 with interest thereon @ 12 %o pcr annum lronr 27.07.1993 till the date of decree and @) 6 ouu per annum from the date ol lecn:e till realization with proportionate costs'

8. Aggrievec by thc said judgment and decree passed by the lei'Lmed Senior Civil Judge, Ni.:amabad, the defendant preferred A.S.No 106 of 2003' The same was heard bi' the leamed VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ilizanrabad and vide judgment and decree dated 24.03.2004 Dr.GR& J sa 1249 2004 dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the judgment and decree passed by 4 the leamed Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. 9' Aggrieved further, the defendant preferred this Second Appear raising the following substantial questions of law: (a) whether the suit was barred by limitation or not as per the trial court decree dated 16.04.2003? (b) whether the admission of praintiff s signature on discharge receipr Ex.B r was not sufficient to dismiss the suit? (c) whether the plaintiff discharged his initial burden of proof i.e. removar of signed stamp from acquiftance register and pasted to Ex.Bl receipt by defendant? (d) whether the plaintiff discharged his burden of producing the acquittance register, in which the stamp was removed or summoned any acquittance register from school to prove his defence? (c) whether the plaintiff faited to discharge his initial burden or not, in tak ing steps in referring Ex.B 1 for expert examination? (f) whether the plainriff was entitled for interest @ 12 %o per annum and arso @ 6 %o per annum as adjudicated by courts below till realization without disproval of Ex.B 1? (g) Whether there was any prohibition under law ro scribe receipt Ex.B I by different person i.e. P.Kistaiah (Dw.3): ewen though the praintiff admined his signature on Ex.B I ? \ 5 Dr.GRR" J sn 1249 2004 (h) Whether the piainr.ilf proved the suit ctaim in accordance with laq ? Whether the courts belou' carLe to a wrong conclusion or not without proving the removal ofsigncd stamp from acquittance register?

10. This Court on i11.03.2005 admitted the Second Appeal on ttre gtounds raise<l by the appc llant in the grounds ofappeal'

11. Heard Sri K.M.Mahendar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - defendant and Sr V.Fi-avi Kiran Rao, leamed Senior Counsel representing Sri V.Rohit, leameri ,;oun:;el for the respondent - plaintiff on record'

12. Leamed c< unsc,l for the appellant submitted that though he raised the ground of limitat on in the grounds of appeal, he was not pressing the same' as thesuitwasfile<onthelastdayoflimitation.Hefurthercontenrledthatno noticewasissue<by.-heplaintifftothedefendantbeforefilingthe;uit'There were alterations in the promissory note marked under E'x'Al' rvhich were admitted by the plaintifl-. Hence, Ex'Al was void as per Section 87 of the Negotiabte lnstr rmertts Act (for short "NI" Act), 1881' The courts below ptaced the burderr of proofon the defendant contrary to the Evidenct' Act' 1872' thoughtheplainrifT:rdmittedhissignatureonExBl'Theplaint'fffailedto prove Ex.Al by :xaorining any scribe or attestor and no explanation was given by him and failed to discharge the initial burden laid upon him as per law' It was a settled lar I that plaintiff must prove his own case, but could not depend upon the weakn,:ss of the case of the defendant. The courts acted beyond the 6 Dr.GR& J sa 1249 2OO4 pleadings and shifted the burden of proof on the defendant. The ptaintilf admitted his signature on Ex.BI and alterations in Ex.Al, which were sumcient to disprove the claim and no rejoinder was filed by him explaining the alterations, removal of revenue stamps from acquittance register nor summoned the said registers to prove the same nor given any explanation as to from where he got money of Rs.40,000/-. No books of accounts were filed. The defendant proved that she discharged the claim and paid the entire amount by adducing evidence and by examining herself as DW.l and by examining the. scribe and attestor as DWs.2 and 3. Though, there was no any written agreement to pay interest, the Court awarded the interest. Ex.A3 was a photo copy which could not be relied nor admitted in evidence. The plaintiff failed to prove his own documents. Interpretation of the terms and conditions of a document would constitlrte a substantial question of law and relied upon the following judgments:

1. Rajendra Lalit Kumar Agarwal v. Ratna Ashok Muranjanr.

2. lndira Kour v. Sheo Lal Kapoor2.

3. lVlessors Trojan v. R.M.N.N.Nagappa Chettiar3.

4. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Usha Devia.

5. Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumars.

6. Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma6.