THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.3510 OF 1992 JUDGMENT:- The defendant in O.S.NO.243 of 1983 on the file of the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.20,940/- being the amount due on a katha. According to the case of the plaintiff, the defendant for family and agricultural purposes opened a katha with the plaintiff on 26- 10-1977 and finally he was found due a sum of Rs.20,940/-. In spite of demands, the amount was not paid and hence the suit. The defendant filed a written statement admitting that he opened a katha, but, the account filed by the plaintiff is not correct. According to the defendant, the plaintiff received 35 quintals of MCU.5 cotton from the defendant on 05-04-1983 in full satisfaction of Katha debt and the representative of the plaintiff by name P.Venkateswara Rao executed a receipt for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and he also promised to return the pronote. The defendant has been demanding the return of the pronote but it was not returned. Therefore, the defendant is not liable to pay the amount. On the basis of the above pleadings, after framing necessary issues, on behalf of the plaintiff PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A- 1 to A-13. On behalf of the defendant, Dws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. After considering the evidence on record, the lower court rejected the plea of the defendant and aggrieved by the said judgment the present appeal has been filed. Now the points that arise for consideration is: Whether the discharge pleaded by the defendant is true and the defendant is not liable for payment of the suit amount? POINT:- The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the reasoning of the lower court in considering the evidence on the side of the defendant with regard to pleas in the other suits being rejected and consequently rejecting the evidence of the defendant is not proper. It is contended that the evidence has to be assessed independently in the suit. As can be seen from the pleadings in the written statement, the defendant admits the katha dealing. According to the case of the defendant, in full satisfaction of the claim, 35 quintals of MCU.5 cotton was given on 05-04-1983 and Ex.B-1 receipt was said to have been passed. Ex.B-1 was said to have been given by the defendant to one Peddi Chalapathi Rao about the particulars of the cotton supplied. It is to be noted that Ex.B-1 does not contain the signature of P.Chalapathi Rao or Penumatchu Venakteswara Rao who is the partner of the plaintiff-firm and who is said to have given Ex.B-2. If really, both receipts were given on the same day, there is no reason as to why the signature about the delivery of the cotton was not taken on Ex.B-1. Further more, the suit is based on katha; whereas the receipt shows that there were some katha dealings and promissory note was said to have been executed by the defendant. The written statement is silent about the execution of any pronote towards katha debt. Therefore, the plea of the defendant that he demanded for return of the pronote cannot be accepted. It is further to be noted the said receipt said to have been passed by P.Venkateswara Rao who is PW.1. It is the evidence of PW.1 that they will not accept any commodity towards discharge of the debt. Though it is sought to be contended that the defendant did not acknowledge the suit claim, the very fact that on 05-04-1983 the defendant claims to have discharged the debt under katha and pronote clearly probablise the contention of the plaintiff that there was an acknowledgment earlier. DW.2 is said to be the scribe of Ex.B-2 and evidently he is not the scribe of Ex.B-1. If Exs.B-1 and B-2 have taken place at the same time, there is no reason as to why it should be scribed by two different persons. Ex.B-2 is said to have been scribed at the house of the defendant and PW.1 is said to have come and took the delivery of the cotton which is also improbable. He admits that he scribed receipts like Ex.B-2 in other suits also, which evidently were disbelieved by the Court. Therefore, the credibility of the witness is rightly taken into consideration as being not acceptable. So also the evidence of DW.3 is to the effect that he attested Ex.B-2 and he does not say anything about Ex.B-1 transaction though both were said to have taken place on the same day. His evidence also does not disclose that PW.1 has taken delivery of the cotton. He is not able to say as to how many receipts like Ex.B-2 were written on that day. Therefore, the evidence of DWs.2 and 3 is of no avail to hold that any cotton was delivered to the PW.1 on that day. No person who has weighed and transported the cotton was examined on the side of the defendant. The above circumstances clearly goes to show that the plea of discharge is improbable and association of Dws.2 and 3 with Ex.B-2 and some other receipts of that nature discredits them. Further more, if rally Ex.B-1 was towards the supply of cotton for discharge of the debt due to the plaintiff, there is no reason as to again scribe Ex.B-2 and in Ex.B-1 itself the parties could have written that the cotton is supplied for discharge of the debt. It is to be mentioned that Ex.B-1 does not contain the signature of the PW.1 and there is also no acknowledgment of PW.1 on Ex.B-1 to show that the cotton was actually delivered and received by PW.1. In the absence of such acknowledgment, the document signed and prepared by DW.1 is of no avail. Ex.B-1 is a self-serving document and it does not prove the delivery of the cotton. Therefore, there are absolutely no merits in the claim of the defendant and the plea of discharge is not true and the suit has been rightly decreed and, therefore, there are no merits in the appeal and the appeal suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 20-10-2011 TSNR