HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No.103/2010 DT. 2-7-2010 1.Mutyala Veera Venkata Rama Rao and another …Appellants-defendants V. Nekkanti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana. ..Respondent/plaintiff The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No. 103/2010 JUDGMENT: This second appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of the IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari , Kakinada dt. 16-9-2009 made in AS No.266/2006, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and decreed the suit OS No.487/2005 filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,29,028/-, which was dismissed by judgment dt. 29-9-2006 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The respondent-plaintiff instituted the above suit stating that the defendants approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs.150000/- on 4-4-2000 promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed a pronote covered under Ex.A-1 on 4-4-2000. Later, with a view to create mortgage by deposit of title deeds, they have deposited the title deeds and executed a memorandum evidencing the deposit of title deeds covered underunder Ex.A-2 dt. 5-4-2000. When the defendants failed to pay the debt amount, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 5-3-2002. Since there was no reply, the plaintiff filed the above suit. The respondents- defendants filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such a huge amount of Rs.1,50,000/-; that they borrowed a sum of Rs.50000/- on 18-12-2000 from Parvatini Narasimha Rao under a simple mortgage and at that time said Narasimha Rao obtained their signatures on blank printed pronote forms and white papers affixed with revenue stamps and also on some while blank papers without stamps, and later by using them the present suit was got filed. On the above pleadings, the trial court settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff fabricated the suit promissory note as contended by the defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiff fabricated memorandum of deposit of title deeds? 3. Whether the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendants on blank papers? 4. Whether there is no cause of action to file the suit? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount? 6. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the suit holding that Ex.A-2-memorandum for depositing of title deeds contains loan particulars, therefore it requires compulsory registration, and it is not an admissible document, as it requires stamp duty, penalty and registration. Exs.A-1 and A-2 are created with the signatures of the defendants available on blank papers and Ex.A-1 suit promissory note is not true and valid and not supported by consideration. On appeal being filed by the plaintiff, the lower appellate court after considering the evidence allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff observing that evidence of P.W.2 is crystal clear that Exs.A-1- pronote and Ex.A-2-memorandum were attested by Seshayyarao and they were scribed by Surya Rao and both of them have witnessed the transaction. Though P.W.2 was cross-examined at length, nothing has been bought out to discredit his testimony except suggesting that at the instance of Parvatini Narasimha Rao and Mutyala Veerraju, he is deposing false. Further, the evidence of the plaintiff in his cross-examination discloses that out of the two attestors of Ex.A-1-pronote, the first attestor who was examined as P.W.2 was brought by him and the other attestor was brought by the defendants, but no efforts were made by the defendants to summon the other attestor and scribe to examine them atleast as a court witness. When the defendants pleaded that the title deed covered under Ex.A-3 was not deposited with the plaintiff under Ex.A-2 memorandum, he failed to explain how the title deed came into possession of the plaintiff. After receiving Ex.A-4-notice, the defendants have not chosen to give any reply, which clearly shows that Ex.A-1-pronote was singed on borrowing the amount. D.W.1 (D-1) in his cross-examination admitted that he is not going to examine his wife, the second defendant as a witness and signatures on Ex.A-1 pronote belong to him and his wife as executants. He further admitted in his cross-examination that himself and his wife borrowed amounts from Parvatini Narasimha Rao and Merla Veeraju by mortgaging the property and they delivered title deeds. No document was filed to substantiate the said plea. Once the defendants admitted that the signatures on Ex.A-1 pronote belong to them as executants and pleaded that they delivered title deeds to Parvatini Narasimha Rao and Merlla Veerraju, burden lies on them to establish the said fact but they failed to establish that the plaintiff with the help of above two persons fabricated Ex.A-1 suit pronote and filed the suit. It is now fairly well settled that on the date of transaction, if the documents of title were handed over and later letter was executed subsequently, which is only an evidence and therefore does not require registration. (INDIAN BANK V. ANOMULA SESHAGIRIRAO AND SONS COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA=AIR 1971 AP 287). In the present case, since on the date of borrowing amount from the plaintiff, there was no demand for deposit of title deeds, therefore pronote was executed in favour of the plaintiff. The pronote was executed on 4-6-2000, whereas memorandum was executed on 5-6-2000 evidencing the deposit of title deeds. Since Ex.A-1-pronote land Ex.A-2-Memorandum were not executed simultaneously and Ex.A-2, which is a memorandum evidencing deposit of title deeds recording the past transaction, no registration is required, and holding so the lower appellate court set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.2,29,028/- with interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants failed to make out any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal. The findings recorded by the lower appellate court while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court, do not give rise to any question of law, much less substantial question of law to be decided in the present second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed at stage of admission. No costs ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:2-7-2010 kmr