THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.40 OF 1994 DATED: 05-08-2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 17-02-1994, in O.S.No.262 of 1993 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.38,100/-, due under a promissory note, dated 08-07-1988, was decreed with costs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. According to the respondent-plaintiff, he was the owner of Ac.8.00 of land in Sy.Nos.125 and 126 of Sampannabowli village, Shamirpet mandal, Rangareddy District and that the defendant agreed to purchase the same and towards the balance sale consideration he executed the suit promissory note, dated 08-07-1988, for a sum of Rs.33,300/- and in spite of repeated demands the defendant failed to pay the same. 4. Appellant-defendant while admitting the execution of the suit promissory note, however, contended that on 08-01-1989 he paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff in full discharge of the debt due under the suit promissory note and that the plaintiff has given up the claim in respect of Rs.3300/- and there was no stipulation for payment of interest and the plaintiff passed receipt- Ex.B1 in favour of the defendant. The defendant further contended that the suit promissory note was materially altered by the plaintiff by altering the date of the promissory note from 06-07-1988 to 08-07-1988. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim? 2. Whether the defendant has paid Rs.30,000/- on 08-01-1989 and obtained receipt from the plaintiff to the effect on the even day? 3. Whether the plaintiff entitled to the interest claimed? 4. Whether the suit pronote was materially altered by the plaintiff as contended by the defendant in his written statement, if so whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for the material alteration? 6. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked on behalf of the plaintiff. D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked on behalf of the defendant. 7. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court gave findings to the effect that the plea of discharge put forward by the defendant is not established and the suit promissory note is not materially altered. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount. Accordingly, the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.33,300/- with costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant would contend that the trial Court having found that Ex.B1- receipt is true and that it was passed by the plaintiff in connection with the land transaction, however, erred in not accepting the plea of discharge put forward by the defendant, based on Ex.B1. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff on the other hand would contend that Ex.B1-receipt was passed by the plaintiff in connection with the land transaction while receiving the advance but not in connection with discharge of any debt due under Ex.A1 and the defendant having failed to establish that Ex.B1 was in connection with discharge of the debt due under Ex.A1, the trial Court rightly disbelieved the plea of discharge and the said finding does not call for any interference. 9. It is not disputed that the plaintiff owned Ac.8.00 acres of land in Shamirpet mandal and the defendant purchased the same under registered sale deeds-Exs.B2 and 3, dated 12-07-1988. It is also not disputed that on 08-07-1988 the defendant executed a suit promissory note-Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.33,300/-, being the balance sale consideration. In Ex.A1 also it is mentioned that the amount of Rs.33,300/- represented the balance sale consideration. Ex.A1 was scribed by none else than the brother-in-law of the defendant. Though the defendant alleged that Ex.A1 was executed on 06-07-1988 and that the date was altered to 08-07-1988, the evidence on record does not establish that there was any such material alteration in the date of Ex.A1. On the other hand, it appears that it is a case of correcting the date from 06-07-1988 to 08-07- 1988 by the scribe himself, who is none else than the brother-in-law. As rightly observed by the trial Court, there was no reason for resorting to any such material alteration by the plaintiff as the same does not in any way affect the limitation. The contention of the defendant that the suit promissory note was materially altered and therefore inadmissible is rightly rejected by the trial Court after due appreciation of the evidence available on record. 10. Regarding the other contention pertaining to discharge of the debt pleaded by the defendant, the burden squarely lies on the defendant to establish that the debt due under the suit promissory note was discharged by making payment of Rs.30,000/- in full quit under the receipt-Ex.B1. Ex.B1, as such, is not disputed by the plaintiff. According to him, the said receipt was passed while receiving advance in connection with the sale of the land prior to execution of Exs.B2 and B3-sale deeds and the same was not in connection with discharge of any debt due under Ex.A1, which was executed for the balance sale price. Notwithstanding the fact that the signature on Ex.B1 is admitted by the plaintiff, the burden nevertheless remains on the defendant to establish that Ex.B1 was passed by the plaintiff for discharge of the debt due under Ex.A1 in full quit. 11. A perusal of Ex.B1 would show that the receipt merely states that a sum of Rs.Rs.30,000/- was received in cash from the defendant. The date of the said payment is not disclosed either in the body of the receipt or under the signature of the plaintiff. The purpose for which the said amount of Rs.30,000/- was received is also not mentioned in Ex.B1. There is absolutely no reference to the promissory note-Ex.A1 nor is there any mention in Ex.B1 that the amount was paid towards discharge of the debt due under Ex.A1 and that too, in full quit. There is absolutely no reason for not disclosing any details in Ex.B1 so as to relate the same to the transaction under Ex.A1. In the absence of anything contained in the document, providing an intrinsic evidence to connect the said document-Ex.B1 with the transaction under Ex.A1, the plea of the defendant that Ex.B1 was passed towards the discharge of the debt under Ex.A1, cannot be accepted. The defendant in support of his plea examined D.W.2-attestor of Ex.B1. 12. D.W.1 admitted that he is an illiterate person and he does not know the contents of Ex.B1, which are typed in English and even according to him Ex.B1 was passed in connection with the land transaction. It is significant to note that the date 08-01-1989 appears only under the signature of the attestor-D.W.2, but no where else in Ex.B1. The testimony of D.W.2 does not in any way establish the plea of the defendant that the amount of Rs.30,000/- paid under Ex.B1 was in discharge of the debt due under Ex.A1. Further, there is absolutely no explanation as to why the defendant has not chosen to get an endorsement of payment made on Ex.A2 nor made any attempt to take return of the promissory note-Ex.A1 from the plaintiff with a due endorsement of discharge thereon, especially when according to him, the debt was fully discharged by making the payment of Rs.30,000/-. Even according to the defendant, the payment under Ex.B1 was on 08-01-1989. The suit was filed on 26-04-1989. Thus for more than three months the defendant never bothered to seek return of the promissory note-Ex.A1 from the plaintiff with an endorsement of cancellation. Though according to him the debt thereunder was fully discharged, the conduct of the defendant runs contra to the natural course of human conduct in the circumstances and coupled with the other improbabilities tends to negative the plea of discharge put forward by him. The trial Court has on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, rightly held that the defendant failed to establish the plea that the debt due under Ex.A1 stood discharged with the payment of Rs.30,000/- under Ex.B1-receipt. The said finding, which is recorded on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, does not call for any interference by this Court. There are no merits in this appeal. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 05th August, 2010. Tsy