Komarapu Durgarao vs Smt. Seepana Thrinadhamma

P.S. Narayana, J.—The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment made in S.C. No. 5/93 on the file of District Munsif, Amadalavalasa.

The defendant in S.C. No, 5/93 is the revision petitioner. The respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,720/- on the strength of promissory note dated 21.7.1990. The case of the respondent-plaintiff is that the revision petitioner-defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from the respondent-plaintiff on 21.7.1990 promising to repay the amount with interest @ 12% per annum and since the revision petitioner-defendant failed to repay the same, the suit was instituted. The revision petitioner-defendant had filed a written statement and contended that he had never borrowed the amount and the husband of the respondent-plaintiff one Laxminarayana and himself were managing a chit fund unit and he used to collect the money from the chit fund unit and hand over the same to the husband of the respondent-plaintiff monthly once and as a security suit promissory note was executed and at the time of execution of the promissory note attestors were not present and no consideration was paid relating to suit promissory note. The parties for the sake of convenience will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant hereinafter.

To prove the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1 and Ex. A. 1 was marked and on behalf of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW1. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the Court below had decreed the suit as prayed for and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

Heard both the Counsels.

The Court below at paras 5 to 8 of the judgment had discussed the issue in detail and arrived at a conclusion that Ex. A. 1 promissory note is supported by consideration and the story of the defendant set up by way of defence cannot be believed. In fact, the evidence of P.W. 1 is clear and categorical on the aspect of execution of Ex. A. 1 and also passing of consideration. The burden of proving non-passing of consideration is on the defendant and the defendant had failed to establish the same.

Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act specifies that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all was given on other side. It is also pertinent to refer to Illustration (b) which reads as follows :

"(b) A sues B for money due on a bond.

The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies.

If no evidence were given oh either side, A would succeed, as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved."

Apart from this aspect, u/s 118 the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is clearly specified that until the contrary is proved, the following presumption shall be made.

"Of no consideration : that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."

Thus, in the light of the above legal position, it is clear that the Court below had come to the correct conclusion that the suit claim was proved by the plaintiff and accordingly the suit was decreed as prayed for.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any legal infirmity warranting interference while exercising the revisional jurisdiction u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Causes (Courts) Act. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed with costs.