HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.2572 OF 1993 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment in O.S.No.55 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srikalahasthi. 2. The suit was one filed for recovery of Rs.33,680/- being principal and interest due on a promissory note, dated 28.04.1986 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. As the defendant did not make the payment, the suit was filed. 3. The defendant pleaded that he borrowed Rs.10,000/- from one D.Venkatasubba Naidu in May, 1977 and executed a promissory note in his favour and it was again renewed in 1980 and also in 1983. The defendant paid Rs.10,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. But, the said Venkatasubba Naidu insisted him to pay interest at 36% per annum, but the defendant did not pay the additional interest. At that time, at the instance of said Venkatasubba Naidu, he put a thumb impression on a paper for the interest due to the said Venkatasubba Naidu, who promised to return that paper. With the help of the said paper, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, who is brother-in- law of Venkatasubba Naidu, by fabricating the suit promissory note. The defendant further pleaded that he owns only an extent of Acs.0.85 cents of land. He is a small farmer and he is protected by the provisions of A.P. Act 45 of 1987 and the debts deemed to have been discharged. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder contending that the defendant owning about Acs.9.00 cents of land and he was getting Rs.3,000/- per month from business in food grains and lemons. 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, genuine and supported by consideration? 2) To what relief? Subsequently, an additional issue was framed on 23.08.1990. Whether the defendant is entitled for the benefits of A.P. Act VII of 1977 and A.P. Act 45 of 1987? 5. On behalf of the Plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11. On behalf of the defendant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked After considering the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount? 2) Whether the defendant is a small farmer and entitled for the benefits of A.P. Act 45 of 1987? 7. POINTS: In support of the claim of the plaintiff, he was examined as PW.1, and got examined the scribe of the promissory note as PW.2, and the expert, who has compared the thumb impressions, as PW.3. As can be seen from the finding of the judgment of the lower Court, the defendant has given up the plea of forgery and the Court has considered it as admitting a thumb impression of the defendant on the promissory note Ex.A.1. Therefore, the question that has to be taken into consideration is whether there was passing of the consideration or whether it was executed under the circumstances narrated by the defendant in his evidence. The substance of the contention of the defendant is that he was indebted to one Venkatasubba Naidu and in connection with those transactions, his thumb impression was obtained on blank promissory notes and that has been used for fabrication of the suit promissory note. But, however, there is absolutely no material on record to show that there were money dealings between defendant and Venkatasubba Naidu. The evidence of PW.2 clearly goes to show that the promissory note was executed in his presence and he was the scribe of the promissory note and cash consideration was paid. Added to that, when a blank promissory note was given willingly, under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it authorizes the person to fill the blanks and the liability of the defendant cannot be excluded. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly considered that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration. 8. So far as the claim of the defendant with regard to the debt being discharged as per the provisions of the A.P. Act 45 of 1987 is concerned, it is not in dispute that the burden is on the defendant to show the extent of property owned by him. Defendant though claims that he has got only Ac.0.80 cents of land, no document is filed. From the own admissions of the defendant that he has sold Acs.6.00 cents of lemon garden and also Acs.4.00 cents of wet land, clearly go to show that the defendant was owning more than Acs.2.50 cents of wet land and consequently, he will not be entitled to the benefits of the A.P. Act 45 of 1987. Therefore, the admissions of the defendant cannot be ignored and there being no other evidence to support his contention, the lower Court has rightly discarded the claim of the defendant. Absolutely, there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:19.10.2011 INL