TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ands, she was constrained to cause a legal notice to him dated 29.08.2007 to which the appellant got issued a reply dated 08.09.2007 with false allegations. In those circumstances, the respondent claimed that she had instituted the suit against him for recovery of the amount. 4. The appellant resisted the claim of the respondent mainly denying the execution of the suit promissory note and also two payment endorsements thereon attributed to him. His further contention is that the respondent was working for him in Cheritasri Hospitals at Vijayawada from whom he had no necessity to borrow and that the suit claim stood barred by time. He also raised a contention at the trial that the person, who instituted the suit in the name of the respondent, was not the real alleged creditor and attributed impersonation not only to the person represented as the respondent (plaintiff) at the trial but also the person, who is referred as the defendant at the trial stage or as the borrower in the suit promissory note. 5. The trial Court settled the following issues for trial basing on the pleadings: "1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 13.01.2000 is true, valid and binding on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntially execution of not only the suit promissory note but also the payment endorsements is denied, the legal burden of proving the transactions solely rests on the plaintiff, namely, the respondent herein and it can never shift to the defendant, namely, the appellant herein. Upon discharge of such legal burden, upon satisfactory evidence proving the document and the transactions, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant, namely, the appellant herein, to probablise his defence in preponderance of probability. 14. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note executed for Rs. 1,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. thereon on demand. The execution of this suit promissory note is attributed to the appellant, who is a neuro-physician and Chairman and Director of Charita Sri Hospitals. The contents of this promissory note are that it was self-scribed by the executant, namely, the appellant. One Sri V.Narayana attested it. At the trial, P.W.1, namely, the respondent deposed in respect of execution of Ex.A1 and the transaction thereunder. It is in consonance with the case set up by her in the pleadings and also explaining the transaction under Ex.A1. 15. The sole a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nor can be looked into to bring any liability of the appellant. 21. Adverting to this legal position, Sri Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, relied on B. Jaya Raghava Naidu vs. B. Rama Subba Reddy 2011(2) ALT 24, where, in this context, it is observed in Para-20 as follows: "20. The legal position that emerges from the case law discussed above is that negotiability of the document is the main feature of a promissory note while the certainty of the sum payable and an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker are the other two important requirements to be satisfy for the document to fall within the description of the promissory note." 22. It is desirable to consider what is section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It reads as under: "4. "Promissory note."-A "Promissory note" is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument." 23. It defines promissory note being an instrument in writing and which is not a bank note or currency. It should contain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these two witnesses clearly deposed in respect of these payment endorsement transactions. Material was elicited in the cross-examination in effect proving the presence of these attestors at the time of respective transactions. 32. One of the contentions of the appellants is that he is running a hospital at Vijayawada with no necessity to borrow, particularly from a subordinate like the respondent. Further contention of the appellant is that P.W.2 is a lorry driver and it cannot be accepted that he would be the witness, who was present at the time of the endorsement under Ex.A2, having regard to the position the appellant occupies. 33. It is also contended for the appellant that P.W.3 is a friend of the husband of the respondent. Therefore, when interested testimony is available on record, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, no credence as such could be attached in relation thereto. 34. Creditworthiness of the appellant stood exposed from the statements elicited from him at the trial as D.W.1, in cross-examination. Several suits were filed referred to in judgments of both the courts below, where the instances were based on promissory notes, which were scrib....