IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN SECOND APPEAL No.1538 of 2010 Between: Vangaveeti Venkateshwarlu. … Appellant/defendant And Kalagani Laxminarayana. … Respondent/plaintiff. Counsel for the appellant: Sri Ravindra Bharati. Counsel for the respondents: --- This Court made the following: JUDGMENT:- This Second Appeal arises out of judgment, dated 2-9-2009, in A.S.No.47 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30-8-2006, in O.S.No.97 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad. The appellant in this appeal is the defendant in O.S.No.97 of 2001, which was filed by the respondent- plaintiff, for recovery of a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards principal and interest accrued thereon. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from him on 29-6-1998 by executing Ex.A.1 promissory note. On the ground that the appellant has not repaid the said money, the respondent filed the said suit. The appellant has taken the plea in the written statement that the debt under the suit pronote was discharged along with other amounts payable to two other persons, i.e., Batchu Nageswara Rao and Ch.Sambasiva Rao; that when the respondent along with the said two persons have approached the appellant for repayment, the dispute was settled, according to which the appellant agreed to pay Rs.3,61,614/- towards the entire liability; and that the appellant has paid Rs.61,614/- on the same day and issued cheque for Rs.3.00 lakhs in favour of the respondent. In the suit, the respondent has examined himself as PW.1 and marked Ex.A.1 promissory note. On the other hand, the appellant has examined himself as DW.1 and also examined DW.2 besides marking Exs.B1 to B3 on his behalf. The trial court has framed the following issues for consideration: “i. Whether the defendant has repaid the entire suit amount? ii. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant? iii. To what relief?” On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has found all the issues in favour of the respondent. It has held that the appellant failed to prove that he has repaid the entire suit amount. The lower appellate court confirmed the said judgment and decree in the appeal filed by the appellant. At the hearing, Sri Ravindra Bharati, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that with the admission of receiving the cheque (Ex.B.l) by the respondent, the appellant has discharged the burden placed on him and that the onus has shifted to the respondent, which he failed to discharge. The Courts below while rejecting the plea of repayment of the suit amount set up by the appellant, relied upon the circumstance, viz., that the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain, the reason for his not taking return of Ex.A.1-promissory note. The Courts below have also held that Ex.B.1 cheque was obviously issued by the appellant in his capacity as Managing Partner of a rice mill. In my opinion, the above findings fall in the realm of appreciation of evidence. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have made a perverse approach in appreciating the evidence. The fact that the appellant did not take return of the promissory note is a strong circumstance, which goes against his plea of discharge of the debt. More over, the appellant failed to examine the other two persons, i.e., Batchu Nageswara Rao and Ch.Sambasiva Rao, who, according to him, are two of the three creditors, towards discharge of whose debts Ex.B.1 cheque was allegedly issued. In the absence of the corroborative evidence adduced by the appellant, the courts below are justified in presuming that Ex.B.1 cheque would have been issued in connection with his capacity as Managing Partner of a rice mill and the same may not be related to the suit promissory note. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any substantial question of law arising in the Second Appeal for adjudication. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, interim order dated 21-1-2011 is vacated and SAMP Nos.3287 of 2010 and 321 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:08-7-2011 MNR