HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.1496 OF 1991 JUDGMENT: The defendant in O.S.No.211 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali, is the appellant herein. 2. The suit was one filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.49,860/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 20.03.1985 executed by the defendant after borrowing a sum of Rs.30,000/- with interest at 24% per annum. Inspite of legal notice, the amount was not paid and hence the suit. 3. The defendant filed a written statement admitting that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was borrowed and a promissory note was executed. The defendant claimed that the suit promissory note is not the promissory note that was executed by her and that there was a material alteration of the figure relating to the month in the body of the promissory note and therefore, the promissory note is not enforceable. It was also pleaded that there was only one attestor K.Venkat Rao at the time the promissory note was executed and there was no other attestor. It was also pleaded that the defendant is an agriculturist, entitled to the protection of the Act 4 of 1938. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following necessary issues have been framed by the trial Court, for trial: 1) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2) Whether there are material alterations in the suit pronote and hence void and unenforceable? 3) Whether the defendant is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938? 4) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the defendant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined but no documents were marked. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Telani, after considering the evidence on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed by the defendant. 6. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the suit promissory note is materially altered and not enforceable? 2) Whether the defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount and the interest claimed is excessive? 7. POINTS: The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is though in the registered reply notice Ex.A.2 issued by the defendant, the execution of the promissory note and also borrowing of the amount of Rs.30,000/- was admitted, it was without going into the contents of the promissory note and therefore, the lower Court erred in taking into consideration that there was an admission of the promissory note on 20.03.1985. It was also his further plea that the attestor, who was examined as PW.2, was not present at the time of the execution of the promissory note and on the other hand, DW.2 was only the person, who has attested the promissory note. According to him, the lower Court has failed to see that the defendant is an agriculturist and therefore, the debt should have been scaled down. 8. Evidently, the defendant does not deny the borrowing of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff and also execution of the promissory note. In fact, in the evidence also, the defendant has admitted that Ex.A.1 promissory note is in her handwriting. The evidence of DW.2, who was an attester examined on behalf of the defendant, also shows that he attested the promissory note Ex.A.1, which was admittedly scribed by the defendant. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that when Rs.30,000/- was borrowed, there is some other promissory note cannot be accepted. The evidence of DWs.1 and 2 or the written statement is silent as to when exactly the amount of Rs.30,000/- was borrowed and another promissory note was executed except the suit promissory note Ex.A.1. If the defendant wants to plead that Ex.A.1 is not the real promissory note executed after borrowing Rs.30,000/-, it is for the defendant to say as to the date when the amount of Rs.30,000/- was borrowed and when the promissory note was executed. In this connection, the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 is totally silent. Therefore, when once the promissory note was scribed by the defendant and also admitted to have been attested by the DW.2, even if PW.2 is to be taken as a subsequent attestor to the promissory note, the fact remains that there was execution of the promissory note by the defendant. 9. The contention of the defendant that the stamps appears to have been pasted from another promissory note also does not appear to be true. In fact, there is no allegation that there was any other promissory note dealing between the plaintiff and the defendant, and taking advantage of her signatures on those stamps, they were affixed on the suit promissory note. Therefore, even the evidence of DW.1 is only an inference but it is not an assertion. According to her, as the stamps appear to be torned and the signature on the stamps appears to be not her and on that basis she is telling that the stamps are not the same. This theory also cannot be accepted when once the factum of defendant herself scribing the promissory note being attested by DW.2 is admitted and receipt of the consideration of Rs.30,000/- is also admitted. It is not the plea of the defendant that the said amount has been discharged at any point of time, and therefore, there is no liability to pay the debt. 10. No doubt the promissory note clearly shows that there was a correction in the first line of the promissory note. Even it is apparent to a naked eye. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following decisions: 1) Allampati Subba Reddy v. Neelapareddi Ramanareddi[1] 2) Verco Private Ltd., Padi and others v. Newandram Naraindas and another[2] 3) Gurmukh Singh v. Jaswant Kaur[3] He also relied on the decision of this Court between Poreddi Bala Chennaiah (died) per LRs Vs. Mendu Sambrajyam in Appeal Suit No.703 of 2001. 11. All the decisions relied on before the lower Court and also this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant clearly lays down that when a material alteration appears on the face of the document, it is for the person, who is in custody of the promissory note to explain the correction. But, in this case the date underneath the signature of the defendant on the stamps and below the stamps clearly shows that it was executed on 20.03.1985. Generally an alteration of the promissory note is resorted only when the claim is barred by time. In this case, the suit was instituted in December, 1987 itself long before the period of three years even assuming to be the promissory note was dated 20.02.1985. Therefore, the explanation given by the plaintiff that there was no correction subsequent to the execution of the promissory note and that the correction, if any, appearing on the promissory note was by the defendant before the completion of the execution has to be accepted. 12. The defendant though claimed she is an agriculturist she did not produce any document and on the other hand, she is said to be having some commercial complex, but the fact remains that the plaintiff has claimed interest at 24% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.30,000/- . The transaction is of the year, 1985 and during that period even a commercial rate of interest is not at 24% per annum and it is not as though there is any risk for lending the money for the defendant and any doubt about the solvency. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact, I feel the ends of justice would meet if interest is granted at 18% per annum instead of 24% per annum as claimed by the plaintiff. With the above modification, the decree of the lower Court is confirmed. Accordingly, points are answered. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a principal sum of Rs.30,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 20.03.1985 till the date of suit and with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Each party shall bear their own costs in the appeal. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 25.08.2011 INL [1] AIR 1966 ANDHRA PRADESH 267 [2] AIR 1974 MADRAS 4 [3] 2011(4) SCJ 15