IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NOS: 502 OF 2004. 3508 OF 2003 AND 1 OF 2006 APPEAL SUIT NO: 502 OF 2004: Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-08-2002 passed in O.S.No.5 of 2000 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnopl District. Between: Bugganna T.Nalla Reddy, S/o.Thirupam Reddy, aged about 47 years Hindu, Trader, R/o.Reddipeta, Bethamcherla Village, Dhone Taluk Kurnool District. ...Appellant/Defendant AND Papagari Bala Veera Reddy, S/o.Veera Reddy, aged about 57 years, Hindu, Agriculture, R/o.Betharncherla, Dhone Taluk, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Plaintiff Counsel for the Appellant :Sri K.Sairama Murthy, representing Sri K.V.Subrahmanyam Narusu Counsel for the Respondent :Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava, Sn S.Lakshminarayana Reddy APPEAL SUIT NO: 3508 OF 2003: Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-08-2002 passed iri O.S.No. 179 of 2001 (O.S.No.237 of 2000 of Junior Civil Judge, Dhone), on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. Between; B.T.Nalla Reddy, S/o.B.Tirupati Reddy, aged 54 years, Hindu, Slab Business, Reddy Bazar, H.No.10/157, R/o.Bethamcherla, Kurnool District. ...Appellant/Defendant AND Papagari Bala Veera Reddy, S/o.P.Veera Reddy, Major Business, Near Telecom Office, Kothapeta, Bethamcherla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Hindu ...Respondent/PlaintifF Counsel for the Appellant iSri K.Sairama Murthy, representing Sri K.V.Subrahmanyam Narusu Counsel for the Respondent :Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava, Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy APPEAL SUIT NO; 1 OF 2006 Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-08-2002 passed in O.S.No.183 of 2001 (O.S.No.567 of 2000 of Junior Civil Judge, Dhone), on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. Between: B.T.Nalla Reddy, S/o.B.Tirupali Reddy, aged 54 years, Hindu, OccrSlab Business, Reddy Bazar, H.No.10/157, R/o.Bethamcheria Viiiage Mandal, Kurnool District. and ...Appellant/Defendant AND Papagari Bala Veera Reddy, S/o.P.Veera Reddy, Major, Hindu, Occ:Business, Near Teiecom Office, Kothapeta, Bethamcheria Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Plaintiff Counsel for the Appellant Murthy, representing Sri k.V.Subrahmanyam Narusu Counsel for the Respondent :Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava, Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy The Court made the following common judgment: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAn Appeal Suit No.502 of 2004, Appeal Suit No.3508 of 2nn.-^ AND Appeal Suit No.1 of 2QQfi COMMON JUDGMENT- . The A.S. No.502 of 2004 is filed by the defendant against the Decree and Judgment, dated 05.08.2002 the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool (“Trial Court passed in O.S. No.5 of 2000, on the file of for short). The A.S.No.3508 of 2003 is filed by the defendant against the Decree and Judgment, dated 05.08.2002, passed in O.S. No.179 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The A.S.No.1 of 2006 is filed by the defendant against the Decree Judgment, dated 05.08.2002, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. and passed in O.S. No.183 of 2001, on the file of the All the appeals are filed O.S.Nos.5 of 2000, 179 of 2001, 181 of 2001 against the common judgment passed in and 183 of 2001, on the file of the Court clubbed all the suits in common Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The trial O.S.Nos.5 of 2000, 179 of 2001 181 of 2001 and 183 of 2001 and evidence is recorded in O.S.No.5 of 2000 and a common judgment is being are decreed in favour of the plaintiff. pronounced in all the suits and all the suits but no appeal has been filed O.S.No.181 of 2001. Since the trial Court clubbed clubbed all these three appeals, they are heard together and judgment is being pronounced in all the three appeals. against the decree and judgment passed iin all the suits, this Court a common 2. It is expedient to refer the parties as they are originally arrayed in the suits so as to avoid any confusion and for belter understanding of the matter. 2 3. The suit in O.S.No.5 of 2000 is filed for recovery of Rs.2,36,300/- with future interest at 24% per annum and for costs of the suit. The suit in O.S.No.179 of 2001 is filed on the foot of a promissory note, dated 01.05.1997 for recovery of Rs.54,385/- with future interest at 12% per annum and for costs of the suit. The suit in O.S.No.183 of 2001 is filed on the foot of a promissory note for recovery of Rs.91,120/- with future interest at 12% per annum and for costs of the suit. 4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, in O.S.No.5 of 2000, is as follows: (i) The defendant purchased an extent of Ac.0-30 cents along with constructions in Sy.No.194/A in Bethamcherla Village from Venkata Subba Reddy, son of BekkamObula Reddy. The sale was preceded by an agreement, dated 15.12.1996 for Rs. 1,60,000/-. The defendant paid Rs.30,000/- in cash to the vendor and executed a promissory note for Rs.20,000/- in favour of the vendor. He could not secure the balance amount and hence, he requested the plaintiff to stand as a surety, with a promise that the defendant would pay the balance by a particular date, failing which, the plaintiff should pay and recover it from the defendant. The defendant did not pay the money to the vendor and when the vendor insisted, the plaintiff paid the balance sale consideration with interest on 27.04.1998 to him and also upon the assurance of the defendant, the sale deed was executed on 04.11.1997. (ii) The defendant executed an agreement on 01.01.1997 in favour of the plaintiff. One BekkamObula Reddy is father of the vendor of the defendant and in his favour, the defendant had executed a promissory note for Rs.20,000/-, since the property belonged to the joint family, Venkata Subba Reddy executed the sale deed and Obula Reddy have received the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- and interest thereon at Rs.40,000/-. Thereupon, he transferred the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by endorsing on 27.04.1998. On the same day, Obula Reddy issued a receipt acknowledging the receipt of sale consideration and authorizing the plaintiff to recover the same from the defendant. As per the sale deed, the defendant took possession of the factory site including constructions, later completed it, and he is now running the factory in that premises.In spite of repeated demands and a registered notice, dated 11.12.1998, the defendant did not repay the amount due and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 5. The defendant filed a written statement denying all the averments in the plaint. The brief averments in the written statement of defendant are as follows; The constructions in the site were very small worth of Rs.20,000/- or Rs.30,000/- and the site of Ac.0-30 cents was not worth of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The site was registered on 04.01.1997 in favour of the defendant for Rs.12,000/-. One Venkata Subba Reddy, the vendor of defendant, had purchased the site on 10.08.1980 for Rs.4,500/- under a registered sale deed. The said site and the negligible construction on it were rubbed on the defendant for an extraordinary amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- by the elders. As per the agreement, dated 01.01.1997, the plaintiff has got only a remedy of getting the sale deed executed from the defendant for a half of the Siva Slabs and Mineral Industries. A panchayat was taken place in the presence of one B.S. Muralidhar Reddy at the instance of the plaintiff where the defendant was made to execute four promissory notes on 01.05.1997. Three of them for Rs.40,000/- and another was for Rs.26,900/-. They were executed in the name of the plaintiff in that settlement. On the foot of one of the promissory notes, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.236 of 2000 on the file of Junior civil Judge, Dhone, one of the notes for Rs.40,000/- bears an endorsement for Rs. 10,000/- as part promissory payment. The plaintiff also returned a demand draft for Rs.5,000/- sent bythe defendant. The defendant also paid Rs. 10,000/- and endorsed the same on the promissory note. The plaintiff instituted suits on the file of Junior Civil Judge Dhone and therefore, the claim in this suit cannot enforce. 4 6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the trial Court in O.S. No.5 of 2000; (1) Whether the plaintiff has paid the balance of sale consideration by the defendant to one Venkata Subba Reddy, for having purchased the property by the defendant? (2) Whether the defendant executed an agreement, dated 01.01.1997 in favour of the plaintiff? (3) Whether the defendant is due suit amount to the plaintiff? (4) Whether the defendant has executed four other pronotes in favour of the plaintiff as alleged in para-4 of the written statement? (5) Whether the suit claim cannot be enforced against the defendant? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for? (7) To what relief? 7. In O.S.No. 179 of 2001, the plaintiff averred that the defendant borrowed Rs.40,000/- from him on 01.05.1997 in cash for his necessities, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and in spite of demands, as he failed to repay the amount due, he filed the suit for recovery of Rs.54,385/ with costs and future interest at contract rate. In O.S.No.183 of 2001, the plaintiff averred that the defendant borrowed Rs.40,000/ and Rs.27,000/- on 01.06.1997 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and executed two promissory notes. It is further averred that in spite of demands, the defendant failed to repay the amount due, the suit is filed for recovery of Rs.91,120/-. 8. In the above two suits i.e., O.S.No.179 of 2001 and O.S.No.183 of 2001, the defendant filed a written statement of similar defence, and it is 5 inconsonance with the defence set up in O.S.No.5 of 2000. The defendant contended that the agreement sought to be enforced in O.S.No.5 of 2000 stood superceded in view of the panchayat and the settlement reached on 01.05.1997 in between them in the presence of Sri B.S.Muralidhar Reddy of Bethamcherla. He further contended that the part payments made by him, are endorsed on the reverse of the promissory notes and which have not been accounted for and that he sought for dismissal of the suits. 9. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following similarissues in O.S.No.179 of 2001 and O.S.No.183 of 2001: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim? (2) To what relief? 10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Ex.AI to Ex.A.14 were marked. On behalf of the Defendant, DW1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 11. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suits vide common judgment, dated 05.08.2002. Aggrieved by the common judgment, the unsuccessful defendant filed the above appeals. 12. Heard Sri K. Sairam Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant and heard Sri T. Ashok Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, facts of the case and evidence on record. He would further contend that the decree and judgment of the trial Court, dated 05.08.2002 is based on surmises but not on any legal evidence and therefore the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is set aside on that ground alone. He would further contend that the trial Court grossly erred in applying provision of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, which do not apply to the facts trial Court decreed all the the appeals may be allowed by the learned trial Judge. of the case. He suits by came to would further contend that the a wrong conclusion and therefore by setting aside the decree and judgment passed Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would evidence on record, the learned viz., O.S.No.5 of 2000, O.S. contend that trial Judge rightly No.179 of 2001 and O.S.No.183 on sppreciation of the entire decreed the suits vi of 2001. 15.NOW the points for determination i (1) Whether the A.S.No.502 of 2004 i (2) Whether the trial O.S.No.5 of 2000? in all the three appeals are; plaintiff |>n O.S.No.5 of 2000 IS entitled the suit claim connected with as prayed? Court is justified i decreeing the in suit in (3) Whether the suit promissory notes Iin O.S.No.179 of 2001 of 2003 and O.S.No.183 connected with A.S.No.3508 of 2001 are supported by consideration IS Justified in decreeing the suits? connected with A.S.No.1 of 2006 and whether the trial Court i 16.Ppint Nos,1 anrf (1) Whether the plaintiff in o c; m . . A.S.No.502of2004isenS,ed,he"s°uL,l"°°^ (2) Whether the trial Court is i of 2000? The case of the plaintiff i property covered under Ex.A. defendant paid Rs.30,000/ promissory note under E.A.2 for connected with as prayed? IS justified in decreeing the suit in O.S.No.5 IS that the defendant 1 on 15.12.1996 agreed to purchase the for Rs. 1,60,000/- - as advance sale consideration and Rs.20,000/- in favour of the vendor by and the executed a name 7 Bekkam Venkata Subba Reddy. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant paid Rs.30,000/- in cash to the vendor and executed a promissory note for Rs.20,000/- in favour of the vendor and the defendant could not secure the balance sale consideration and that he requested the plaintiff to stand as a surety with a promise that the defendant would pay the balance by a particular date, failing which the plaintiff should pay and recover it from the defendant. He further pleaded that the defendant did not pay the money to the vendor and when the vendor insisted the plaintiff, he paid the balance sale consideration with interest on 27.04.1998 to him and also upon assurance of the defendant. He further pleaded that the sale deed was executed on 04.01.1997. He further pleaded that the defendant executed an agreement, dated 01.01.1997 under Ex.A.4 in favour of the plaintiff and one Obula Reddy is father of the vendor of the defendant and in his favour the defendant executed a promissory note for Rs.20,000/- and Venkata Subba Reddy executed a sale deed under Ex.A.7 and Obula Reddy i.e., father of the vendor of the defendant has received the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- and interest thereon Rs.40,000/-. He further pleaded that the promissory note said to have been executed in favour of the vendor of the defendant was transferred in favour of the plaintiff on 27.04.1998 by making specific endorsement. He further pleadedthat since the defendant failed to discharge his liability, the plaintiff paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- and interest thereon Rs.40,000/- in total Rs. 1,70,000/- to the vendor of the defendant and obtained a receipt to that extent and that he is entitled to recover the said sum from the defendant. 17. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on self testimony as P.W.1 as well as documentary evidence Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he is the plaintiff in the suit, O.S.No.5 of 2000 and also plaintiff in other suits and the defendant purchased Ac.0-30 cents of site from one Bekkam Venkata Subba Reddy and they entered into an agreement of sale initially and the consideration under the said agreement is Rs.1,60,000/- and the defendant paid an advance amount of Rs.30,000/- to the vendor and had executed a promissory note for Rs.20,000/- in his favour. He further 8 deposed that it was also agreed under the said agreement that in the event of the defendant failure to pay the balance sale consideration on 26.12.1996, it stands cancelled. He further deposed that the defendant requested the plaintiff to stand as a surety for paying the balance sale consideration and accordingly, he stood as a surety for the defendant and the defendant executed an agreement in his favour on 01.01.1997 and the defendant executed a pronote on the same day for Rs. 1,30,000/- in favour of father of Venkata Subba Reddy viz., Obula Reddy. He further deposed that on 04.01.1997 a sale deed was executed in favour of defendant by Venkata Subba Reddy, but the defendant did not pay the balance sale consideration. As per his evidence, when he was demanded to pay the amount due under the pronote executed in favourObula Reddy, since there is no option to him, he paid an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- including the interest of Rs.40,000/- to the father of the vendor of the defendant and the pronote executed by the defendant in favour of Venkata Subba Reddy was transferred in his favour. 18. The evidence of P.W.1 further proves that as a surety, he paid total sum of Rs.1,70,000/- which includes interest of Rs.40,000/- and to that extent Obula Reddy also issued a receipt under Ex.A.8 and transferred the same in favour of the plaintiff. It is also made it clear that the said Obula Reddy transferred Ex.A.2 pronote under Ex.A.3 endorsement. The evidence on record proves that the plaintiff has executed a promissory note for such a balance sale consideration under Ex.A.5 on 01.01.1997 in favour of Obula Reddy. 19. As seen from the evidence of defendant i.e., D.W.1, Obula Reddy transferred Ex.A.2, Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.8 in favour of the plaintiff. The own admissions of the defendant i.e., D.W.1 proves since the defendant failed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/- from out of an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and he also failed to discharge the pronote amount under Ex.A.2, as a surety, the plaintiff paid the balance sale consideration sum of Rs.1,70,000/- which includes interest of Rs.40,000/- on 27.04.1998 and the plaintiff also obtained a receipt to that extent. The defendant admitted in his mm- 9 evidence in cross examination itself that Obula Reddy transferred Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 and also Ex.A.8 in favour of the plaintiff. 20. The defendant entered into a witness box as D.W.1. He admitted in his evidence in cross examination itself that he is liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff on account of purchase of site under Ex.A.7. He further admits the plaintiff did not demand him to pay such amount and hence he did not choose to pay the amount to the plaintiff. He further admits though he was served notice, he could not pay the same to the plaintiff since he is in financially distressed condition. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that basing on the admission made by the defendant, the trial Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff which is not sustainable under law. 22. Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows; 58. Facts admitted need not be proved. No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule or pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings. The proviso to the section specifically gives a discretion to the Court to require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions. The defendant admitted on Oath before the trial Court that he is liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff on account of purchase of the site under Ex.A.7 and though he was served a legal notice by the plaintiff, he could not pay the same in view of the financially distressed condition. Furthermore, the own admissions of the defendant clearly proves that the defendant has to discharge the suit claim in O.S.No.5 of 2000. The own admissions of the defendant has to be read along with oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff. On 10 considering the oral and documentary evidence on both parties, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the defendant since the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- on 27.04.1998 to the father of vendor of the defendant and the defendant also obtained a sale deed in respect of the immovable property of Ac.0-30 cents and the defendant is in possession and enjoyment and that the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 1,70,000/- and with interest at 12% per annum from 28.04.1998 onwards till . the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum on Rs.1,70,000/- till the date of realization. The learned trial Judge awarded interest of 24% per annum on Rs.1,70,000/- from the date of presentation of the suit till the date of decree, the same is not tenable. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.1,70,000/- from 28.04.1998 onwards till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the learned trial Judge is justified in decreeing the suit except the interest awarded by the learned trial Judge. Accordingly, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered. 24. Point No.3:- Whether the suit promissory notes in O.S.No.179 of 2001 connected with A.S.No.3508 of 2003 and O.S.No.183 of 2001 connected with A.S.No.1 of 2006 are supported by consideration and whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suits? The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.179 of 2001 is the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from him on 01.05.1997 in cash for his necessities and agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and in spite of demands as he failed to repay the amount due, he filed the suit for recovery of amount under the promissory note. - 11 The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.183 of 2001 is that the defendant borrowed Rs.40,000/- and Rs.27,000/- on 01.06.1997 by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and executed twopronotes and in spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the amount due and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 25. The defendant pleaded in the written statement that he never borrowed any amount under the pronotes as stated supra and he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 26. It is relevant to say that the execution of the pronotes as stated supra, is admitted by the defendant in the written statement itself. Theplaintiff filed a suit O.S.No.181 of 2001 for recovery of suit pronoteamount said to have been executed by the defendant under Ex.A.12. In fact, the trial Court clubbed all the suits, common evidence is recorded in O.S.No.5 of 2000 and the suit in O.S.No.181 of 2001 was decreed but no appeal is preferred by the defendant against the judgment passed in O.S.No.181 of 2001. It is an admitted fact by both the parties that no appeal is filed against the judgment in O.S.No.181 of 2001. The contention of the respondent/plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed amount under pronotes separately for his necessities. As seen from the evidence on record, the execution of Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 pronotes are admitted by the defendant and he himself scribed all the pronotes. The oral contention of the appellant is that Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 are executed in view of the payment of sale consideration under Ex.A.7 to the vendor of the defendant. There is no whisper in Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 pronotes that those pronotes were executed in view of the discharge of liability under sale transaction by the defendant. There is no evidence on record that to discharge the liability under sale transaction, Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 and another pronote under Ex.A.12 were executed. 27. Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 pronotes in both the suits were scribed by the defendant himself. The defendant admitted in his evidence in cross 12 examination itself that both the attestors in E.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 are cordial to him but for the reasons best known to him, he failed to examine the attestors, though both the attestors are having cordial to the defendant and having good relation with him. 28. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the plaintiff failed to examine the attestors under Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 pronotes. In the evidence in cross examination itself, the defendant admitted on oath before the trial Court about the execution of Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 pronotes. In fact, the defendant also admitted execution of Ex.A.12 pronote in O.S.No.181 of 2001 and common judgment is being pronounced in all the suits but no appeal has been filed against the said judgment by the defendant. It is also relevant to say that the defendant himself scribed Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 pronotes. The defendant admitted in his evidence in cross examination itself that in Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 there is no reference that those pronotes are executed in view of sale transaction under Ex.A.7 and is liable to pay the same to the plaintiff. He further admits in Ex.A.11, Ex.A.12, A.13 and Ex.A.14 it is recited that those pronotes executed for cash consideration. The evidence of P.W.1 and the admissions of the defendant clearly proves about passing of consideration under Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 pronotes and also execution of Ex.A. 11, Ex.A. 13 and Ex.A. 14 by the defendant. 29. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with the presumption as to negotiable instrument one of such presumption is that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. The presumption is based upon a principle and is not a mere technical provision. The principle incorporated being, in inferring of the presumption of consideration in the case of negotiable instrument. 13 30. In Narayan vs. Gopal\ the Apex Court held as follows; “The burden of proof is of an importance only where by reason of not discharging the burden which was put upon it, a party must eventually fail, Where, however, parties have joined issue and have led evidence and the conflicting evidence can be weighed to determine which way the issue can be decided, the abstract question of burden of proof becomes academic.” In the case on hand, the execution of Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 pronotes are admitted by the defendant, but the defendant failed to prove that the suit pronotes under Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 are not supported by consideration. The execution of the pronotes is clearly admitted by the defendant in the written statement itself. The contention of the defendant is that in view of payment of liability of sale consideration under a sale deed, Ex.A.7, he executed all the pronotes. As stated supra, there is no evidence on record either oral or documentary to show Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 are executed in view of payment of sale consideration in Ex.A.7. The law is very clear that once the defendant admitted the execution of Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 pronotes in the written statement itself and also on Oath in the evidence, the burden is on the defendant to prove the suit pronotes are not supported by consideration and those are simply obtained in view of the liability of payment of balance sale consideration in Ex.A.7, but the defendant failed to discharge his burden. To discharge his burden, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got exhibited original promotes as Ex.AII, Ex.A13 and Ex.A14. It is also made it clear that the fact admitted need not be proved. As stated supra, the defendant himself scribed Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 promissory notes, both the attestors are cordial to him, in such a case, it is for the defendant to disprove the passing of consideration under Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14, he has to examine the attestors in the suit promotes, but he failed to do therefore, the defendant cannot take shelter that the plaintiff has not examined the attestors to the promissory notes. Therefore, the suit promissory notes \ •V so Vi R 1960 sc 100 under Ex.A.11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 are supported by consideration. By giving cogent reasons the iearned trial Judge held that the suit promissory notes under Ex.A. 11, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 are supported by consideration and the entitled the suit claim in O.S.Nos.179 of 2001 and 183 of 2001. need to interfere with the findings given by the trial Court. plaintiff is Therefore, there is no the result, the appeal inA.S. No.502 of 2004 is partly allowed by modifying the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court as the plaintiff is amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and subsequent interest at 12% per annum from 28.04.1998 to till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% 31. In entitled an on Rs.1,70,000/- per annum till the date of realization. In the result, the appeal in A.S.No.3508 of 2003 is dismissed by and judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.179 of confirming the decree 2001. In the result, the appeal in A.S.No.1 of 2006 is dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.183 of 2001. the facts and circumstances of the case, both parties do Considering bear their own costs in the above three appeals. sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeals shall .•'VUv 4,"' I ' As a stand closed^ idTe. KAWIESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //true COPY// SECTION OFFICER Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District. To, Principal Civil Judge (Senior 1. The (With records) 2. One CC to Advocate [OPUC] Sri K.V.Subrahmanyam Narusu 3 one CC to Sri S.Lakshmirrarayana Reddy, Advocate [OFUq Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava, Advocate [ High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 4. OneCCto 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, 6. Two CD Copies BSV RAM HIGH COURT DATED:16/06/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT AND DECREE AS.Nos.502 of 2004, 3508 of 2003 and 1 of 2006 11 SEP 2025 ^ . Current Seciion ^ % m o fj ALLOWING THE AS Nb.502 of 2004 IN PART WITHOUT COSTS & DISMISSING THE AS Nos.3508 of 2003 and 1 of 2006 WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 1 OF 2006 Between: B.T.Nalla Reddy, S/o.B.Tirupati Reddy, aged 54 years, Hindu, Occ:Slab Business, Reddy Bazar, H.No.10/157, R/o.Bethamcherla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Appellant/Defendant AND Papagari Bala Veera Reddy, S/o.P.Veera Reddy, Major, Hindu, OcciBusiness, Near Telecom Office, Kothapeta, Bethamcherla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Plaintiff Appeal under Section 96 of CPC, against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-08-2002 passed in O.S.No.183 of 2001 (O.S.No.567 of 2000 of Junior Civil Judge, Dhone), on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri K.Sairama Murthy, Advocate representing Sri K.V.Subrahmanyam Narusu, Advocate for Appellant and of Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava and Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, Advocates for Respondent. This Court doth Order and decree; "1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.183 of 2001 be and hereby are confirmed; and 3. That the both parties be and hereby are directed to bear their own costs in the appeal. Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. Two CD Copies RAM < -- HIGH COURT DATED: 16/06/2025 decree AS.No.1 of 2006 g n SEP 2025 m Co! ^ ^ Current aeciion ^ DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 502 OF 2004 Between: Bugganna T.Nalla Reddy, S/o.Thirupam Reddy, aged about 47 years, Hindu, Trader, R/o.Reddipeta, Bethamcherla Village, Dhone Taluk, Kurnool District. ...Appellant/Defendant AND Papagari Bala Veera Reddy, S/o.Veera Reddy, aged about 57 years, Hindu, Agriculture, R/o.Bethamcherla, Dhone Taluk, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Plaintiff Appeal under Section 96 of CPC, against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-08-2002 passed in O.S.No.5 of 2000 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri K.Sairama Murthy, Advocate representing Sri K.V.Subrahmanyam Narusu, Advocate for Appellant and of Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava and Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, Advocates for Respondent. This Court doth Order and decree: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is allowed in part; 2. That the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court be and hereby i: modified; 3. That the plaintiff be and hereby is entitled an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs. 1,70,000/- from 28.04.1998 to till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization; and 4. That the both parties be and hereby are directed to bear their own costs in the appeal. IS Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT Rp^GISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:16/06/2025 DECREE OF AND/Ty^^% AS.No.502 of 2004 11 SEP 2025 ac m. O Co , Curreni iieciion ^^ ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN PART WITHOUT COSTS ’■c IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI OF A MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE O ■•V o .. Ay ' .9^ PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 3508 OF 2003 Between: B.T.Nalla Reddy, S/o.B.Tirupati Reddy, aged 54 years, Hindu, Slab Business, Reddy Bazar, H.No.10/157, R/o.Bethamcherla, Kurnool District. ...Appellant/Defendant AND Papagari Bala Veera Reddy, S/o.P.Veera Reddy, Major, Hindu, Business, Near Telecom Office, Kothapeta, Bethamcherla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Plaintiff Appeal under Section 96 of CPC, against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-08-2002 passed in O.S.No.179 of 2001 (O.S.No.237 of 2000 of Junior Civil Judge, Dhone), on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri K.Sairama Murthy, Advocate representing Sri K.V.Subrahmanyam Narusu, Advocate for Appellant and of Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava and Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, Advocates for Respondent. This Court doth Order and decree: 1j;.That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.179 of 2001 be and hereby are confirmed; and 3. That the both parties be and hereby are directed to bear their own costs in the appeal. Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// / SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:16/06/2025 DECREE 11 SEP 2025 ? ^ Current Seciion AS.No.3508 of 2003 e? X o 3 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS