THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1529 OF 1998 JUDGMENT:- The defendant in O.S.No.96 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Senor Civil Judge, Gudivada is the appellant herein. The suit one was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.39,030/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote dated 14-12-1986 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff after borrowing a sum of Rs.30,000/-. As the amount was not paid inspite of repeated demands, the suit was filed. The defendant filed a written statement inter alia stating that the suit pronote is not executed by the defendant by taking any consideration from the plaintiff. It was not executed in favour of the plaintiff. It was further averred in Paras.3 and 4 of the written statement as under:- Para.3: this defendant is an employee in Visakhapatnam in Andhra Bank since 1985 and on sick leave whereas the suit pronote is dated 14-12-1986. The suit pronote according to defendant must have been brought into existence under the following circumstances. The defendant learns that the plaintiff is a close relative of Sri Kosaraju Venkateswara Rao, Senior Lecturer in A.N.R. College, Gudivada, who has been doing hire purchase finance business in Gudivada under the name “Vijayalakhsmi Finance Company”. Its partners are (1) Y.Aravinda Ghopish (2) K.Subbaiah, (3) P.Parvathi, (4) S.Kumar, (5) K.Sriramulu. Though the said K.Venkateswara Rao’s name is not found in the said Finance Company, he is the defacto manager of that Firm. Para.4. Kanuri Pattabhi Ramaiah took finance from “Vijayalakshmi Finance Company” partnership Firm, against hypothecation of a vehicle “Willias Van” Regd.No.A.A.W.5178. He has been paying instalments. He paid instalment as follows so far as the knowledge this defendant goes:-- On 11-4-1983 Hire purchase at 15% per annum Repayable in 18 instalments… Rs.12,000/- On 11-5-1983 No.13152 Receipt … Rs.1,100/- On 8-6-1983 No.13167 Receipt … Rs. 800/- On 31-7-1983 No.13191 Receipt … Rs. 800/- On 12-01-1984 No 40 Receipt ….Rs. 800/- ________ Rs. 3,500/- _________ The plaintiff is cousin brother of Sri Kosaraju Venkateswara Rao. At that time, this defendant along with P.Siva Sankara Prasad stood as guarantors for K.Pattabhi Ramaiah. This defendant signed on a blank printed form pronote and also signed on blank N.J.S. stamp worth Rs.5/- and handed over the same to “Vijayalakhsmi Finance Company”. Similarly, the said Siva Sankara Prasad also did on another blank pronote and blank agreement form. The said blank pronote which was delivered by this defendant towards 3rd party guarantee, this defendant believes, has been used to file this suit with a view to secure wrongful gain by the said K.Venkateswara Rao. The plaintiff is only a name lender. This defendant, as submitted earlier never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff or executed any pronote in favour of the plaintiff.” Further, it is averred that the blank pronote is used by the K.Venkateswara Rao. The attestor is also a partner and therefore the defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount. On the basis of the above pleadings, necessary issues have been framed for trial and on behalf of the plaintiff PWs.1 to 3 are examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the defendant, defendant was examined as DW.1 and another was examined as DW.2 and marked Ex.B-1. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiff and aggrieved by the said judgment the present appeal has been filed. Now the points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the suit pronote was not executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and was not supported by consideration? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? POINTS:- The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- and executed Ex.A-1 pronote. In order to prove the execution of the pronote and also passing of the consideration apart from his evidence, he has examined PWs.2 and 3. The contention of the defendant is that the attestors are the relatives of the plaintiff and there is no liability. The defendant has not specifically denied the signature on the pronote even in the written statement and on the other hand he claims that he has not executed the pronote in favour of the plaintiff. According to the case of the defendant, he stood as a surety for one K.Pattabhi Ramaiah, who is said to have availed a loan for hire purchase for a sum of Rs.12,000/- and in connection with that a blank pronote was taken and probably that might have been used by Kosaraju Venkateswara Rao, who is the relative of the plaintiff. Evidently, the initial burden of execution of the pronote and passing of the consideration is discharged by the plaintiff by examining PWs.1 to 3. The defendant does not deny the factum of his signature on the pronote. He has come with a theory that when Pattabhi Ramaiah has taken the loan on hire purchase, he along with one P.Siva Sankar Prasad stood as guarantors and gave blank pronote. Therefore, in order to show that the blank pronote was given in connection with transaction of Pattabhi Ramaiah, some material evidence has to be adduced by the defendant. The defendant has not examined Siva Sankar Prasad who is said to have also executed another pronote as a guarantee. Reliance is placed on the evidence of PW.2 that the defendant stood as a guarantor for Pattabhi Ramaiah but the evidence of PW.2 does not disclose that the suit pronote was executed in connection with that transaction. Therefore, the so-called admission of Pw.2 will not in any way advance the case of the plaintiff. Even if the defendant has not received the cash consideration when he has handed over the blank pronote with his signature, under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 it authorises the person to fill up a blank and amount and also the person authorised to receive the same and the defendant cannot deny the liability to pay the amount. There is absolutely no material to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and on the other hand the material evidence which could have been produced by the defendant to prove his contention has not been produced before the lower court. The lower court has rightly assessed the evidence on record and came to a right conclusion. There are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 13-10-2011 TSNR