THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 518 of 1998 JUDGMENT: The defendant in O.S.No.503 of 1986 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, is the appellant herein. The suit was one filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.41,020/- being the principal and interest due on promissory notes dated 05.10.1984 and 15.10.1985 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each with interest at 24% per annum. The defendant has not paid the money in spite of repeated demands. Hence, the suit. The defendant filed written statement contending that he borrowed a sum of Rs.9,000/- only and signed a blank promissory note in 1984 as the defendant trusted the plaintiff and his father, who are related to the wife of the defendant. Due to the family disputes, the suit blank promissory notes have been filled up. The defendant denied the borrowing of Rs.15,000/- under second promissory note dated 15.10.1985. Therefore, the defendant pleaded for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the suit pronote dated 05.10.1984 is not fully supported by consideration? 2. Whether the pronote dated 15.10.1985 is true, valid and binding? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-18 and on behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, the appeal. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the defendant is not liable to pay the suit amounts and the promissory notes debts are not true? 2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable? POINT NOS.1 & 2: So far as the first promissory note Ex.A-1 is concerned, the defendant contends that he has only borrowed a sum of Rs.9,000/- and has signed on a blank promissory note. So far as the second promissory note Ex.A-2 is concerned, it is a case of total denial. Therefore, the plaintiff has to prove the execution of the second promissory note and also passing of the consideration under the first promissory note. The two promissory notes are said to have been scribed by the defendant himself. According to the plaintiff, there are no disputes between him and his family members and he claims to have lent the money under both the promissory notes. He said to be owning properties. The defendant was said to be partner of Viswasanthi theatre. He claims to have borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from a financier at Tadepalligudem and spending part of money by him lent under Ex.A-1 to the defendant. The attestors are said to have been brought by the defendant. He denied the suggestion that there were disputes with regard to the performance of the marriage of his sister. It was specifically suggested to him that the defendant has signed in Ex.A-1 when the blanks were not filled up and that he received only Rs.9,000/-. The evidence of P.W.2 supports the passing of the consideration of Rs.15,000/-. The defendant has not given any reason as to why he should give a blank promissory note having borrowed the sum of Rs.9,000/- only. Therefore, whenever the defendant admits a signature on the blank promissory note and also receipt of part of consideration then under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the claim of the defendant that the suit promissory note is not true, cannot be accepted and it authorizes the holder of the blank promissory note to fill in the blanks. Even as per the evidence of the defendant, he was doing a cinema hall business and during the year 1984-85, he has contributed a sum of Rs.65,000/- for renovation of the theatre though he was said to be having accounts, they were not filed. Evidently, for the other amounts, which were said to have been paid from other family members of the plaintiff, suits have been filed and one of the suits has been decreed. Even in the cross-examination of P.W.2, his interestedness in the plaintiff or his disputes with the defendant could not be made out. The evidence of D.W.2 has no reflection on the nature of the suit transaction. It is an admitted fact that a legal notice was given to the defendant and he admits the receipt of the same but he did not give any reply though he claims to have sent his father for mediation. There is no material to prove the same. On the other hand, the defendant did not come up with a plea of sending his father for mediation in the written statement and on the other hand, he denied the receipt of the notices also. By having admitted that he has borrowed a sum of Rs.9,000/- from the plaintiff, it is futile for him to contend that there is no capacity for the plaintiff to advance the money. If the marriage of the sister of the plaintiff could not be performed, there cannot be any grievance against the defendant since the proposed alliance is not with the relatives of the defendant. Therefore, the plea of the defendant cannot be accepted as true. A perusal of the promissory notes Exs.A-1 and A-2 clearly goes to show that the theory of fabrication is not probable. The defendant could not make out any cause for the plaintiff to fabricate the documents. The fact that the defendant has borrowed from the others and during the relevant time, there was need for him to contribute for the renovation of the theatre and the very fact that he has not come forward with the truthful version with regard to Ex.A-1 clearly goes to show that his plea is not true and the lower Court on consideration of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the other material on record has come to the right conclusion that both the promissory notes are proved and the need for borrowing was also for the purpose of his business needs. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the lower Court. Accordingly, the points are answered. Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed with costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 29-10-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 518 of 1998 DATE: 29-10-2011 MR