In the Court of The Subordinate Judge at Khammam
(Name of the Judge), B.A., B.L.,
Thursday, the 20th day of June, 1978. Original Suit No. 35 of 1976.
Suit to recover Rs. 5,337-50 towards principal and interest due on a promissory note dated (date should be mentioned).
2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:-The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff on… (date) for dalwa cultivation agreeing to repay the same with compound interest at R.1.00 p.c. per hundred per mensem with yearly rests and executed a pronote on the even date. The defendant did not repay the same inspite of demands and a notice dated… (date on which the notice is given). Hence, the suit claiming interest at 5/2% p.a. as the defendant is an agriculturist.
3. The defendant filed a written statement contending as follows:-This defendant never borrowed any money from the plaintiff nor did he executed the suit pronote. It is a forged one and is not supported by any consideration. The suit is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
4. On the pleadings the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor:-
1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration?
2. Whether the defendant is entitled to compensatory costs?
3. To what relief?
5. Issue 1:-It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed Rs. 5,000/
-from him on…. (date) for dalwa cultivation agreeing to repay the same with compound
interest at R. 1.00 p.c. per hundred per mensem with yearly rests and executed the pronote Ex. A-l on the even date and did not repay inspite of demands and a notice, Office copy of which is Ex. A-2, issued on …….(date). It is the case of the defendant that the suit pronote is a forged one. He denied his liability by giving the reply Ex. A-3 to the notice issued by the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff as P.W. 1 stated that he knows the defendant from the days of his childhood, that the defendant borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from him and executed the pronote Ex. A-l. According to him, the defendant wrote the pronote in his own hand. DEF (Name), P.W. 2. and GHI (Name), P.W. 3 are the attestors to the pronote and both of them supported the plaintiff. P.W. 3 is the nephew of the plaintiff. P.W. 3’s sister is given in marriage to P.W. 2’s son. But, according to P.W. 2 that marriage took place about an year ago i.e., long after the execution of the suit pronote. P.W. 1 stated that the defendant brought P.W. 2 and 3 along with him and executed the pronote at his house. P.W.s. 1 to 3 are residents of Malapalli and the house of the defendant, who is a kapu, is admittedly at a distance. P.W.s 2 and 3 stated that the defendant called them on his way and took them to the house of the plaintiff where he executed the pronote. P.W.2 is working as a teacher, and I am impressed with his evidence. Simply because P.W.s 2 and 3 are related to the plaintiff their evidence cannot be rejected. P.W. 1 stated that he sold 300 bags of paddy to Gopal Raju at Rs. 50/- per bag and that cash was in his hands for about one month before he lent Rs. 5,000/- to the defendant. According to P.W. 1 he owns Ac. 30-00 of land and he sells about 300 bags of paddy per year. His capacity to lend Rs. 5,000/- to the defendant cannot be doubted as the defendant in his evidence as D.W. 1 admitted that the plaintiff owns about Ac. 25-00 of wet land.
7. P.W. 1 admitted that there are two parties in the village one of Rajus and the other of Kapus. The defendant’s brother is Achhayya alias Achhi Babu. It is gathered from the evidence that Achhi Babu is leading Kapus and Gopal Raju is leading Kshatriyas. P.W. 1 admitted that Achhi Babu contested against Rajus in the last Panchayat Elections and was defeated and that he and others supported Rajus. P.W.2 stated that he cannot say whether the entire Malapalli supported Rajus. But, P.W. 3 admitted that all of them in Malapalli belongs to Raju’s party. According to D.W. 1 Panchayat Elections took place in ….(year) long after the date of suit pronote. It has therefore no bearing on this case. D.W. 1 stated that there is enmity between him and the plaintiff from 1966 due to elections. He admitted that neither he nor the plaintiff contested in the elections. Though he stated that his brother Achhi Babu set up a candidate in 1966 elections he stated that he cannot say the names of the candidates. There is no personal enemity between him and P.Ws 1 to 3. I cannot agree that P.W.s 1 to 3 have any motive to perjure against the defendant.
8. P.Ws. 1 to 3 stated that the defendant wrote the pronote in his own hand. D.W. 1 stated that he did not write the pronote and that the signature in Ex. A-l is not his signature. He admitted that he is the scribe of the pronote Ex. A-4 executed by KLN (name) and another in favour of Subba Laxmi. Ex. C-l is a copy of the suit pronote which the defendant was made to write in Court when he made an application to send the suit pronote to an expert for comparison. On a comparison of the writing in Ex. C-
1 with that in Ex. A-4 it is easy to see that he wrote the matter in Ex. C-l slowly and carefully to disguise his hand-writing. On a comparison of the writing and signature in Ex. A-4 with that in Ex. A-l and careful examination, it can be concluded without any hesitation that the defendant wrote the pronote Ex. A-l in his own hand and signed. I do not hesitate to conclude that the defendant set up a false plea of forgery. P.W. 1 stated that P.W. 2 and 3 signed as attestors with the pen with which the defendant signed in Ex. A-l. P.W. 2 stated that he signed with the pen with which the defendant signed and P.W. 3 stated that he signed with the pen with which the defendant signed. It can be seen from Ex. A-l that the defendant and P.W. 2 signed with the same pen but the pen with which P.W. 3 signed appears to have a blunt end. This discrepency in evidence does not in any way affect the truth of the plaintiffs case. I am impressed with the evidence of P.W. 1 and I have no hesitation to accept the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and conclude that the defendant borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff on….. (date) and executed the pronote Ex.A-l find issue 1 in the affirmative.
9. Issue 2:-In view of my finding on issue 1, it follows; the defendant is not entitled to any compensatory costs.
10. Issue 3:-In the result, the suit is decreed with costs.
Dictated to the short-hand writer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this 20th day of June, 1978.
(Sd.)…….. (Signature of the Judge)
WITNESSES EXAMINED For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
1. Sri………………………………………………………………… 1. Sri………………
2. Sri………………… 2. Sri………………
Ex. A-l. Date……. Promissory note executed by the Defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 5,000/-
A-2. Date…… Office copy of the registered notice got issued by Sri.. , Advocate for the plaintiff Sri…. to the Defendant Sri….
A-3. Date……………… Reply registered notice got issued by Sri…. , Advocate for
A-4. Promissory note executed by KLN and another in favour of Smt. Subba Laxmi for Rs. 1,200/-. C-l. Date……. Copy of the suit promissory note written by the defendant in the presence of Sheristadar of this Court.
For Defendant :-Nil…. (Sd) (Signature of the Judge)