THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2758 OF 1999 JUDGMENT:- The plaintiff in O.S.No.31 of 1987 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur is the appellant herein. The suit one was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.47,600-30 paise being the principal and interest due on a pronote dated 02-03-1984 executed by the defendant for a sum of Rs.35,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant has not paid the money and on the other hand a false reply was given claiming that the defendant was wrongfully confined and forcibly the signature was obtained on the pronote. Hence the suit. The defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations that a sum of Rs.35,000/- was borrowed by him and execution of the pronote. According to him, on 22-09-1984 the plaintiff has taken the defendant forcibly to his house when he was in his agricultural land and obtained the signature on the pronote at about 11 A.M by putting him under threat to his life. No consideration was paid and in fact the pronote itself was drafted as being dated 02-03-1984. The father of the plaintiff was influential and powerful and he was the Ex-Minister whereas the defendant was working in-charge Village Munsif and he demanded the tax and due to that the pronote was obtained. In fact immediately on the same day, a legal notice was issued and it was refused by the plaintiff. When the defendant went to Signarayakonda Police Station and requested for taking action but no action was taken. Therefore, the defendant pleaded that he is not liable to pay the amount. On the basis of the above pleadings, after framing necessary issues, on behalf of the plaintiff PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 and on behalf of the defendant Dws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether suit pronote was executed under the circumstances pleaded by the defendant and, therefore, not liable to pay the suit amount? POINT:- There is no dispute about the fact that the defendant admits his execution of the pronote Ex.A-1 and according to him the plaintiff took him forcibly and obtained the signature at his house on 22-09-1984 which appears to be a Sivaratri day. According to him, he demanded the plaintiff to pay the arrears of house cist and due to that the above document was obtained and in fact he had sufficient properties and there was no need for him to borrow any amount from the plaintiff. When once the execution of the pronote is admitted, but, when coercion and threat was pleaded the burden is definitely on the defendant to prove the same. In this connection, as can be seen from the evidence on record when the defendant was called by the plaintiff to his house when he was at Sapota garden, there was no threat and the defendant was said to have followed voluntarily. No body was there at that time when he followed, but, however after coming out of the house he claims to have informed PW.2 and also gone to Singarayakonda Police Station, but, the Police did not take any action. As against this evidence, the evidence of PW.1 supported by the evidence of PW.2 shows that the pronote was executed by the defendant after receiving of the consideration of Rs.35,000/-. Generally, in any cases of this nature, it is very difficult to accept the plea of the defendant unless it is conclusive. A vague and uncorroborated statement will not be given credence. The motive for extracting of the pronote does not appear to be a strong reason for the plaintiff to resort to such an extent of wrongful confinement and obtaining a pronote. Even if the cist is not paid, there is nothing the defendant can do, but, however in this case the learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the defendant is said to have gone to the police station and complained to the police but no evidence in support of it was adduced and in the absence of any evidence on this aspect, the theory of the defendant could not be accepted and the lower court has erred. But it is to be mentioned that according to the case of the defendant the police have refused to take action on his complaint and therefore he was forced to go to his Advocate evidently and got a notice issued on the same day about the allegation of extracting the pronote and the defence set up. Therefore, I feel if the claim of the defendant that on 29-02-1984 the defendant has gone to the Advocate and got issued a notice with the above facts is to be believed, then naturally it is a strong circumstance in his favour. In this connection in order to prove the above fact the defendant has filed a copy of the legal notice and also the receipt of registration of the notices to the plaintiff and also the police. Ex.B-1 is the legal notice which is dated 29-02-1984 and Exs.B-2 and B-3 are the postal receipts. This legal notice is said to have been refused and Ex.B-4 is the returned notice. It is to be mentioned that in the cross examination of the defendant, there is not of much material to discredit the above facts and on the other hand the stamps of the postal department contained in Exs.B-2 and B-3 clearly goes to show that they were dated 01-03-1984. Evidently, when 29-02-1984 is said to be a public holiday due to Sivaratri, the legal notice could have been issued only on the subsequent day. Therefore, the legal notice assumes importance in this connection. In the legal notice itself, it has been specifically stated that on 29-02-1984 at about 11 A.M the defendant is said to have been confined and a pronote said to have been executed on 02-03-1984 was obtained from him. It is difficult to believe that on 29-02-1984 the defendant would have visualised that a pronote dated 02-03-1984 would be brought into existence if really the said pronote was obtained on 29-02-1984. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I feel apart from the oral testimony, Exs.B-1 to B-3 shows as to how the claim of the defendant appears to be true. Therefore, when the police have evidently not taken any action as per the defendant, the non- examination of the police is no ground to discard the claim of the defendant. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge does not call for any interference. Therefore, there are no grounds 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 01-11-2011 TSNR