THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 2271 of 1992 JUDGMENT: The defendant in O.S.No.100 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.18,960.19 ps. The allegations in the plaint go to show that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.13,600/- from the 1st plaintiff on 25.11.1972 for his agricultural expenses and executed a promissory note and paid a sum of Rs.100/- on 25.11.1975 and in spite of repeated demands the defendant did not pay the money and hence, the suit. The defendant filed written statement contending that no amount was borrowed under the promissory note dated 25.11.1972. It was pleaded that the defendant executed a promissory note on 25.11.1969 for Rs.10,000/- in favour of the plaintiff’s husband and the said debt was renewed by executing the suit promissory note dated 25.11.1972. The earlier promissory note was returned. The husband of the 1st plaintiff was in the habit of taking blank promissory notes. The defendant also executed other promissory notes. The suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. The suit promissory note debt and another promissory note debts were completely discharged on 15.05.1978 and a receipt was given by the husband of the 1st plaintiff to the defendant. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the suit pronote is a renewal of an earlier pronote dated 25.11.1969 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff’s husband? 2. Whether the plaintiff did not advance money under the suit pronote? 3. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the suit debt? 4. Whether the defendant discharged the debt due on the suit pronote as alleged by him? 5. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-21 and on behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-19. Ex.X-1 was marked, which is an inland letter written by P.W.1 to D.W.4. The suit along with another suit in O.S.103 of 1980 basing on another promissory note was tried together and the learned Judge after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit amount? 2) Whether the discharge pleaded by the appellant is true? 3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? POINT NOS.1 to 3: There is no dispute that the promissory notes were executed. But according to the case of the defendant, no consideration was passed but it was a renewal of an earlier promissory note of the year 1969. The law is now well settled that the consideration mentioned in the promissory note need not be the same consideration and it can be any other form of consideration. Therefore, when the defendant admits that the promissory note was a renewal of an earlier promissory note and the debt was due by then, it is futile for the appellant to contend that the promissory note is not enforceable. Even otherwise, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly goes to show that the promissory note is in the hand-writing of the defendant. The earlier promissory note was said to be for Rs.10,000/- and the promissory note Ex.A-2 concerning the suit is for Rs.13,600/-. Evidently, the defendant was in the habit of executing promissory note after borrowing the money and renewing the same. There is nothing on record to show that any excess amount was included in the promissory note Ex.A-2. The evidence on the side of the defendant, therefore, does not disprove the presumption or the claim of the plaintiff that the suit promissory note was supported by consideration and the suit promissory note is enforceable. The defendant also contended that under Ex.B-3 receipt, executed by the husband of the 1st plaintiff, a sum of Rs.32,570.72 paise was paid and discharged of this promissory note and another promissory note debts. Evidently, a valid discharge of a promissory note can only be to the holder of the promissory note. In this case, there is no material to hold that the consent of the plaintiff was given for discharge of the promissory note debt and there is no material to show that Ex.B-3 binds the plaintiff. The evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to the Ex.B-3 cannot be accepted as rightly held by the lower Court. The lower Court found that in Ex.A-17 caveat application in O.P.No.3 of 1978, the said receipt is not pleaded. It is not the case that the defendant is not aware of the necessity of taking the return of the promissory note. The lower Court also found that D.Ws.2 and 3 are close friends of the defendant. The lower Court also found that there is no proof that the defendant was possessed of the amount on that day to discharge the debt. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4 about the discharge of the promissory note debt cannot be believed and the lower Court has rightly rejected the claim and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree of the lower Court. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 10-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 2271 of 1992 DATE: 10-08-2011 MR