THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2110 OF 1993 JUDGMENT:- The first defendant in O.S.No.23 of 1991 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, RayachotY is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.67,963/- which is the amount due on a pronote dated 01-08-1983. Allegations in the plaint goes to show that first defendant in order to meet his family necessities and for purchase of a lorry borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- and executed a pronote. The first defendant without paying the amount was acquiring the properties in the names of second defendant and his relatives and later a notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Hence the suit. The first defendant has filed a written statement denying the borrowing of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and execution of a pronote. The allegations that the first defendant is screening the properties is also denied. According to the case of 1st defendant that the maternal aunt of the first defendant and the plaintiff were partners in a lorry ATR 3145. As the plaintiff and the first defendant are close friends since 1953, the first defendant persuaded his maternal aunt viz., Siddam Venkatamma to take the plaintiff as partner in her lorry. The plaintiff did not invest any amount in the lorry. But he arranged a loan of Rs.40,000/- from a finance company viz., Pavan Kumar Auto Finance Company on the said lorry, for which both plaintiff and defendant stood as guarantors. The plaintiff was in charge of the vehicle and was managing the income and expenses. While so, differences arose between the partners and finally the elders including the first defendant settled the dispute. The veicle was assessed at Rs.1 lakh. It was agreed that Siddam Venkatamma should pay Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff should discharge the amount due to the financer and the vehicle will remain with Siddam Venkatamma. The second defendant is the wife of first defendant also denied the allegation and claiming that she is not a necessary party to the suit and claimed that the properties exclusively belongs to her. The defendants also filed an additional written statement and the first defendant contended that the suit pronote was executed as a result of Panchayat held between the plaintiff and one Venkatamma and the letters said to have been written by the plaintiff on 14-09-1985 and 20-10- 1985 clearly establishes the above facts. The suit pronote was executed only on condition of the plaintiff discharging the loan amount borrowed from a finance company. The second defendant also filed additional written statement supporting the earlier allegations. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder denying the allegations in the additional written statement. After competition of above pleadings, the following original issues were settled. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount with costs and interest as prayed for? 2. Whether the defendant No.2 is not liable for the suit amount as alleged by the defendant No.2? 3. Whether the defendant No.1 has executed the suit pronote at the instance of one Venkatamma and the plaintiff as alleged by D-1 without consideration? 4. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as alleged by D-2? 5. To what relief? Later, the following additional issue was also framed. 1.Whether the letters dated 4-09-1985 and 20-10-1985 relates to the suit debt? On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-26. On behalf of the defendant DWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff and aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. The suit against the second defendant was dismissed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable/ (2) To what relief? POINTS:- From the evidence of DW.1 and the amended written statement, it is clear that the pronote was executed by the first defendant alone and not by the second defendant. Therefore, the lower court rightly dismissed the suit against the second defendant. According to the claim of the first defendant the suit pronote is not supported by consideration for the reason that his maternal aunt Venkatamma was running a lorry bearing No.ATR 3145 and as she was incurring losses, the plaintiff who is his friend came forward to run the lorry in case if he was given a share and offered to obtain a loan from Pavan Kumar Finance Company and accordingly the Plaintiff, Venkatamma and defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- which was spent for the repairing of the lorry. Thereafter a panchayat was held and elders valued the lorry for Rs.1 lakh and settled the issue that Venkatamma should pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff and take back the lorry and the plaintiff should discharge the debt due to the finance company. In that connection, the defendant was asked to execute a pronote for Rs.50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff as a security and accordingly she executed the pronote. If really the facts stated by the defendant are true he should have examined Venkatamma or any of the persons who were present at the time of panchayat. But without mentioning the names of the panchayatdars, he has merely introduced DWs.3 and 4 who are panchyatdars. Even otherwise the best person to speak about panchayat is Venkatamma who has taken the lorry. Evidently, the suit pronote is in the hand-writing of the first defendant and it shows that the money was borrowed. Even otherwise, according to the case of the defendant, a sum of Rs.40,000/- was borrowed by the plaintiff from a finance company and there is nothing to show that the said debt was discharged by the Venikatamma or the defendant. One fails to understand as to why the first defendant should execute a pronote in favour of the plaintiff when lorry was taken by Vankatamma and Venkatamma should pay Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has to discharge the debt due to the financial company. Probably if the theory of the defendant is to be believed, it can be taken as a execution of the pronote on behalf of the Venkatamma since she has taken back the lorry and the plaintiff has to discharge the loan to the finance company. As rightly found by the lower court, there is no document evidencing such understanding and it has rightly discarded the theory of panchayat and the belated circumstances pleaded in the written statement about the execution of the pronote. As rightly found by the lower court Exs.B-1 and B-2 does not reflect anything about the suit transaction. The defendant having admitted the execution of the pronote, the presumption carries with it supported by cash consideration. The evidence adduced on his behalf is not sufficient to rebut the same and he came with belated version about the circumstances under which the pronote was executed. The lower court has rightly rejected the same and even if the entire transaction is to be believed, I have no hesitation to hold that the pronote executed by the defendant can also be towards the liability of Venkatamma who has taken back the lorry and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the lower court. The points are therefore answered. Accordingly the appeal suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 31-12-2010 TSNR