Nukareddy Kanakavardhan Reddy vs Naga Aruna

The suit in O.S. No.7 of 2021 was filed by the appellant herein before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, for recovery of Rs.30,08,799/-based on the strength of (4) promissory notes allegedly executed by the respondent herein. Suit was dismissed under the judgment dated 18.07.2023. The first appeal filed by the appellant herein vide A.S.No.01 of 2024 was dismissed under the judgment dated 08.04.2025 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajampet. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the dismissal of the suit, present Second Appeal is filed.

For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant, as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3 The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,75,000/- on 01.06.2018, Rs.5,00,000/- on 02.06.2018, Rs.5,00,000 on 03.06.2018 and Rs.3,00,000/-on 04.06.2018 under Exs.A1 to A4 respectively, agreeing to repay the amount borrowed with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. But the defendant failed to repay the said amounts; hence, the suit is filed for recovery of the dues.

Family of the defendant is living on cultivation, her son is in search of job and her husband was working at Kuwait. She does not know Telugu. Younger brother of the defendant by name Lakshmi Narasa Reddy requested her for arranging the money, she approached the plaintiff and borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- from him by executing a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. When defendant was alone in her house in the year 2018, the plaintiff and his elder sister approached the defendant stating that they are going to Dubai and demanded to execute some more promissory notes. Due to their threats and having no other option, the defendant signed on the unfilled promissory notes. She was not aware of the amounts for which the promissory notes were filled in or obtained. On 18.07.2019, a Panchayat was held before the elders. In the said Panchayat, husband of the defendant agreed to pay Rs.65,00,000/- out of the Rs.70,00,000/- and promised to discharge the debt by selling the house and on 29.06.2020 an amount of Rs.65,00,000/- was paid to the plaintiff and his elder sister. Having received the same, the plaintiff and his sister has executed a receipt in favour of the defendant stating that there are no further money transactions between them. On receipt of the Court summons, the defendant approached the police and gave a complaint, and also filed a private complaint covered by Crime No. 164 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 417, 418 and 420 IPC.

Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant.

Now the point that arise for consideration of this Court, is Whether there are any substantial questions of law involved for admitting the appeal?

On the strength of the pleadings, the issues touching the truth and validity of the promissory notes and entitlement of the plaintiff for recovery of the amount were framed. Trial court in its judgment vide paragraph 12 observed that - the Court has perused Exs.A1 to A4 scrupulously and found that each promissory note was assembled with torn parts of promissory note with help of tape affixed on the back of promissory note, and each promissory note on its perusal make it evident that they were torn into in four parts; they were assembled affixing with tape on the back of promissory notes so as to resemble as original promissory notes, and that there is no explanation of the plaintiff as to what made to him to assemble the pieces of torn promissory notes by affixing a tape. The plaintiff did not whisper about the condition of Exhibits A1 to A4 in the plaint.

Detailed reasoning with reference to the evidence of the defendant side witnesses DW.1 to DW.4, is given in the judgment by the trial Court vide paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment.

Dissatisfied with the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The first appellate Court, while concurring with the findings of the Trial Court, in its judgment dated 08.04.2025 in A.S. No.1 of 2024, formulated the point for consideration as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount based on Exs.A1 to A4. The first appellate Court, in its judgment, extracted the observations of the Trial Court in paragraphs 16, 17 and 19, besides supplementing the same with its own findings, and ultimately, approved the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff/appellant, in the second appeal, urged that the first appellate Court failed to form independent opinion and failed to appreciate admission of the defendant with regard to the Exs.A1 to A4. It was further contended that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court were erroneous and unsustainable.

The substantial questions of law sought to be projected by the learned counsel for the appellant in the Second Appeal, both in the grounds of appeal and during the course of arguments, are as follows:

The extraction of the pleadings of the Trial Court will reveals that the defendant has taken specific plea on discharge of the debt as well as the torn promissory notes. With regard to discharge, examination of witnesses on behalf of defendant is also reflected in the judgment by the Trial Court, by referring the names of the witnesses and their oral evidence with respect to Ex.B1-receipt. The torn condition of the promissory notes, Ex.B1 -receipt and oral evidence of other witnesses as well as the immediate conduct of the plaintiff in approaching the Police on receipt of such summons are all clearly addressed by the Trial Court.

The objection raised for the appellant/plaintiff is that the First Appellate Court failed to formulate the point for consideration is also far from the truth. The first Appellate Court has supplemented its own reasoning while addressing to the findings of the Trial Court. Merely because certain paragraphs from the judgment of the Trial Court have been reproduced in the judgment of the First Appellate Court, it cannot be automatically inferred that the first Appellate Court did not apply its independent mind. Only certain paragraphs from the judgment of the Trial Court have been extracted. Therefore, the twin objections, namely, non-formulation of the point for consideration and non-application of independent mind by the First Appellate Court, are found to be without merit.

Therefore, non-appreciation or misappreciation of the facts and legal position cannot be inferred from a reading of the judgments of either the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal. Consequently, the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. Point framed is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs, in the appeal.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.