IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 1408 OF 2004 BETWEEN: Thummala Sudhakar Rao …APPELLANT AND Aluru Venkateshwarlu …RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 1408 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The defendant in O.S.No. 95 of 2002 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, is the appellant herein. 2. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.4,62,824/- being the principal and interest due under the promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/- dated 01.01.1998 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 30% per annum. After repeated demands, the defendant made part payment of Rs.1,000/- on 16.08.2000 and the same was endorsed on the back side of promissory note. Thereafter, in spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not make the payment. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant filed a written statement, denying the allegations in the plaint about borrowing of Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.01.1998 and the endorsement of part payment of Rs.1,000/- on 16.08.2000 on the back side of the promissory note is not true. The interest claimed is excessive. The suit promissory note and the endorsement are fabricated. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court, for trial: 1) Whether the suit pronote is true and genuine? 2) Whether the payment endorsement dt.16.08.2000 is true and genuine? 3) Whether the defendant is an agriculturist and if so, the interest is liable to be scaled down? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount as prayed for? 5) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. On behalf of the defendant, defendant was examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked. 7. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and also granted interest at 30% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% till the date of realisation on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. 8. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the suit promissory note and endorsement of payment are true? 2) Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is excessive? 9. POINTS: Since the defendant has denied the execution of the promissory note and also the endorsement of payment i.e., Ex.A-2, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the same. In order to prove the transaction PW- 1 was examined, to prove the passing of the consideration PW-2, who is said to be scribe of Ex.A-1, was examined and also PW-3, who is said to be clerk under the defendant, claims to have attested the payment endorsement Ex.A-2. In the cross-examination of PWs. 1 to 3 apart from the pleadings, the defendant could not make out any case as to how the plaintiff is interested in fabricating the suit promissory note for any unlawful gain. There is no proof of any disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant. PWs. 2 and 3 are not interested witnesses and there is no reason for them to prove or to say against the defendant. The lower Court has assessed the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and found Exs.A-1 and A-2 as true. There is no reason to come to a different conclusion. 10. The counsel for the appellant contends that the interest granted by lower Court is highly excessive and usurious. The suit was filed for recovery of the principal amount with interest at the rate of 30% per annum. The interest has exceeded the principal amount. Added to that, the Court also has granted interest at the rate of 30% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree. Evidently, when the interest, which is apparently excessive and usurious, is claimed, special circumstances should be proved by the plaintiff. Merely because the defendant is an auditor, it does not mean that any rate of interest can be granted. Even in commercial transactions or bank transactions, the rate of interest was never more than 18% per annum at any point of time. There is no risk for the plaintiff in realisation of the amount from the defendant. The plaintiff has not made out any cause or special reason for the entitlement of 30% interest. Merely because the borrower has approached the plaintiff for some money, the situation cannot be taken as an advantage and usurious and excessive interest cannot be allowed to be collected. Therefore, I find that the contention of the appellant that the claim of the interest at 30% per annum is highly unreasonable, usurious and excessive. I feel the ends of justice would meet if interest is granted at 18% per annum from the date of promissory note i.e., 01.01.1998 till the date of suit with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. Accordingly, the points are answered. 11. In the result, the appeal suit is partly allowed and the suit is decreed for Rs.4,62,824/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of promissory note i.e., 01.01.1998 till the date of suit with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. Each party shall bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 16-03-2011. INL