THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 1119 of 2001 Dated: 17-06-2011 Between: Koppula Raghava Reddy .. Petitioner And Bommireddy Sudhakar Reddy .. Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 1119 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The defendant in O.S.No.22 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattupalli, Khammam District is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.1,02,625/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 12.11.1995, which is said to have been borrowed by the defendant for his family and also agricultural needs, agreeing to pay interest at 24% per annum and as the defendant has not paid the said sum the suit was filed. The defendant has taken a plea that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was borrowed under a promissory note and the promissory note was taken for higher sum and he also admitted to have executed a letter on 09.09.1997 agreeing that he received a sum of Rs.60,000/-. The claim of interest at 24% is not proper. There is material alteration in the suit promissory note in the sense that the attestation of the two persons obtained after execution of the promissory note and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for? 2. Whether the suit pronote is devoid of the consideration to a tune of Rs.30,000/-? 3. Whether the plaintiff is doing money lending business without having license and thereby the suit pronote is invalid? 4. Whether the suit pronote is materially altered and so, the suit pronote is not genuine one? and 5. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and on behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. After considering the material and the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli decreed the suit of the plaintiff and aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 06.11.2000, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the promissory note Ex.A-1 is not fully supported by consideration? 2. Whether there was any material alteration as claimed by the defendant? 3. Whether the interest claimed and granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli is excessive? 4. To what relief? POINTS 1 to 4: Evidently, when the execution of the promissory note is admitted and the passing of the consideration is admitted but a plea is taken that there is failure of the consideration to the total extent mentioned in Ex.A-1, the burden is on the defendant to prove that he did not receive Rs.60,000/- as mentioned in Ex.A-1. To support his contention, except his evidence, there is no other evidence. His contention is that there were no attestors on the promissory note and that it was materially altered, also cannot be accepted in view of the fact that P.W.2, who is also known to both the parties and has no interest either in the plaintiff or in the defendant, has specifically stated that the promissory note Ex.A-1 was executed by the defendant after receipt of consideration of Rs.60,000/-. Even otherwise, as under letter Ex.A-2, the defendant has specifically admitted that he has to pay the amount of Rs.60,000/-. It is a post card written by the defendant himself and the theory that it was obtained by force, cannot be accepted. The defendant himself is educated and working as Senior Assistant in Government office and, therefore, the claim of the defendant that he received only Rs.30,000/- is not proved and the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is not rebuttable. On the other hand, the positive evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A-2 establish the passing of the total consideration under Ex.A-1. So far as the plea of material alteration is concerned, it is based on the contention that there were no attestors when the promissory note executed and subsequently it was attested by two persons. In fact, the evidence of P.W.2 clearly shows that on the date of Ex.A-1 only he has attested the promissory note Ex.A-1. There is no material alteration apparent on the face of the promissory note and the attestation even if subsequently is not a material alteration, in view of the fact that the attestation is not compulsory for the execution of the promissory note. Therefore, for the above reasons, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. But, however, the suit was laid claiming interest at 24% per annum from the date of the suit promissory note till the date of suit and subsequently at 24% interest. The decree passed by the lower Court also shows that it has accepted the claim for 24% per annum and also granted 24% interest from the date of the suit till the date of judgment and thereafter at 6% per annum. Evidently, there were no special reasons to claim such high rate of interest. There is no proof that the market rate prevailing on the date of loan transaction is so high. The security of the loan is also in doubt since the defendant is an employee in the Government and, therefore, in view of the above circumstances, grant of 24% interest is apparently harsh and injurious. Apart from that the plaint itself goes to show that the defendant has borrowed the money for his family expenses and also agricultural expenses, especially showing that he has got agricultural activities. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, I feel the ends of justice would meet, if the interest is granted at 18% per annum from the date of promissory note till the date of suit and 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest at 6% per annum till the date of realization. With the above modification, the Appeal Suit is allowed. Each party to bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 17-06-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 1119 of 2001 17-06-2011 MR