HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Second Appeal No.65 of 1994 Date: 24-02-2011 Between Mallelapeda Subbareddy … Appellant/Appellant/Defendant and Sudha Chinna Narasimha Reddy … Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Second Appeal No.65 of 1994 Judgment: This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 30-9-1993 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Prodattur in Appeal Suit No.15 of 1991. 2. The brief facts leading to this second appeal are as follows: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the appellant/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,060/- on the basis of a promissory note dated 01-10-1986 executed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,300/- from the respondent on 01-10-1986 and executed Ex.A-1 promissory note in his own handwriting agreeing to repay the same with interest on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order. In spite of several demands raised by the plaintiff personally and in spite of the notice dated 30-9-1989 issued by the respondent through his advocate, the defendant did not pay the amount. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit to recover the suit amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit promissory note till the date of realization. 3. The appellant/defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and that he did not receive Rs.15,300/- under the promissory note dated 01-10- 1986. He borrowed an amount of Rs.5,700/- from the respondent on 01-10-1980 and executed a promissory note. Again, on 01-10-1983 as he could not repay the debt he renewed the same and executed the 2nd promissory note for Rs.9,300/- and that the suit promissory note is the further renewal of the earlier two promissory notes for Rs.15,300/-. He also filed earlier promissory notes said to have been executed by him in favour of the respondent, which were returned to him by the respondent at the time of execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note. The appellant/defendant further contended that he is not a business man and he is a small farmer and he is entitled for the benefits of Act 45 of 1987. 4. The suit O.S.No.249 of 1989 filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court i.e., the Principal District Munsif, Proddatur, holding that the suit promissory note is not the renewal of the prior promissory notes and that the appellant is not a small farmer and therefore, he is not entitled for the benefits of Act 45 of 1987 and the trial Court awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.15,300/- from the date of the suit promissory note till the date of realization. 5. The appellant herein filed appeal A.S.No.15 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Proddatur. The appeal was allowed partly setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court as regards the grant of interest from the date of the promissory note to the date of the suit and the appeal was dismissed in other aspects without costs. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Proddatur in A.S.No.15 of 1991, the defendant in the suit filed this second appeal. 7. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no stipulation regarding the payment of interest in Ex.A-1 promissory note, but the Courts below granted interest at the rate of 6% per annum contrary to the terms of promissory note Ex.A-1. 8. Admittedly, there was no stipulation of rate of interest in Ex.A- 1 promissory note. But, it has been clearly mentioned that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,300/- and that he is liable to pay interest on the principal amount to the plaintiff or his order. The rate of interest is not specifically mentioned in Ex.A-1 promissory note. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the rate of interest is not mentioned in Ex.A-1 promissory note, the appellant/defendant is not liable to pay interest and that the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court granting interest from the date of suit till the date of realization is liable to be set aside. 10. Though the trial Court awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the promissory note till the date of realization, the lower appellate Court modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granted interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization but not from the date of Ex.A-1 promissory note till the date of realization. 11. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Ex.A-1 promissory note is the renewal of the prior promissory notes Exs.B-1 and B-2 and that he is entitled for the benefits of Act 45 of 1987 as he is a small farmer are negatived by both the Courts below and the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed. The rate of interest awarded by the lower appellate Court at 6% per annum is from the date of the suit till the date of realization. As there was no stipulation in Ex.A-1 promissory note about the rate of interest, the lower appellate Court has rightly awarded interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. 12. When there is no stipulation for payment of particular rate of interest, the Court has got ample power under Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 (14 of 1978) to award interest at reasonable rate. The lower appellate Court has fixed the reasonable rate of interest from the date of the suit till the date of realization. 13. Both the Courts below have considered the entire evidence on record and found that Ex.A-1 promissory note is not the renewal of the prior promissory notes and that the appellant/defendant is not a small farmer and not entitled for the benefits of Act 45 of 1987 and decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 14. Therefore, I see no valid grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court with regard to the payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization. 15. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court are hereby confirmed. _____________________ V.SURI APPA RAO, J. 24th February, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Second Appeal No.65 of 1994 24th February, 2011.