2018 (5) TMI 839 - HC - Indian Laws

Appellate Court Upholds Trial Decision Dismissing Appeal with Costs

Siram Srirama Murthy Versus Meka Suryanarayanamma

Siram Srirama Murthy Versus Meka Suryanarayanamma - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, and supported by consideration.2. Whether the suit promissory note came into existence under the circumstances mentioned in the written statement.3. Whether the defendant is a small farmer and entitled to the benefits of Act 45 of 1987 and Act 1 of 1990.4. Relief to which the parties are entitled.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity and Consideration of the Promissory Note:The defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note (Ex.A1) but denied its validity and consideration. The trial court applied Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presumes that the promissory note is supported by consideration once its execution is admitted. The court found that the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A1 by examining one of the attestors. The oral evidence of DWs.2 to 4, which suggested that the promissory notes were executed for amounts higher than lent, was not considered reliable due to their close acquaintance with the defendant. The court concluded that the suit promissory note was valid and supported by consideration.2. Circumstances of the Promissory Note's Existence:The defendant claimed that the promissory note was executed under coercion and was not supported by consideration. The trial court, however, found no credible evidence to support this claim. The defendant's own admission of borrowing amounts from B.V.V.R. Mohana Rao and executing the promissory note contradicted his defense. The court held that the promissory note was executed voluntarily and was valid.3. Status as a Small Farmer and Entitlement to Benefits:The defendant claimed benefits under Act 45 of 1987 and Act 1 of 1990, asserting he was a small farmer. However, the trial court rejected this plea, noting the defendant's admission of owning a medical shop and two kirana shops. There was no evidence of the defendant owning agricultural land, disqualifying him from the claimed benefits.4. Relief:The trial court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 88,400 with future interest at 12% per annum. The defendant's appeal challenged this judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's non-appearance in the witness box should have precluded the decree. The appellate court, however, upheld the trial court's judgment, referencing the principle that once the execution of a promissory note is admitted, the presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies. The appellate court found that the defendant failed to rebut this presumption effectively.Conclusion:The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and decree, dismissing the appeal with costs. The court emphasized that the defendant's admission of executing the promissory note and the lack of credible evidence to counter the presumption of consideration justified the decree in favor of the plaintiff. The miscellaneous petitions pending in the appeal were also closed.