Discharge plea not proved = D.W-2 is said to be the scribe and document writer. The evidence of D.W-3 does not show the payment of money in his presence and he claims to have casually attested Ex.B-1. It is to be noted that both the Courts below have taken into consideration Exs.A-5 and A-6-charge sheet and report in C.C.No.362 of 2002, respectively, and held that the seven demand drafts which were sought to have been issued by the appellant were fraudulently encashed by himself and it is a subject matter of criminal case against the appellant. This circumstance clearly shows that the conduct of the appellant is not believable and when once a legal notice has been issued without return of the promissory note, it is difficult to believe that a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been paid by the appellant under Ex.B-1. There is also no evidence of the elders who said to have settled the dispute.


HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.688 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
          The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.32 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Palakonda, Srikakulam District, is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of the money due on a promissory note, dated 05.08.2000, for a sum of Rs.35,000/- which is said to have been borrowed by the defendant and in evidence thereof, the promissory note was executed.
The defendant filed a written statement admitting the borrowing, but contended that he has paid a sum of Rs.7,000/- under seven demand drafts to the plaintiff and asked the plaintiff to credit the same to the suit pronote amount in part. The plaintiff also got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 01.04.2002. According to the defendant, a dispute was raised and the elders have settled it and that, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was agreed to be paid and accordingly, the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff on 10.04.2002 under Ex.B-1 in the presence of D.Ws.2 and 3 and therefore, there is no liability on him to pay the suit amount.
After framing the necessary issues, the trial Court has disbelieved the claim of the appellant and decreed the suit. As against that, A.S.No.6 of 2007 was preferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Second Appeal is sought to be filed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that both the Courts below have not properly taken into consideration the payment of Rs.7,000/- by the defendant under seven demand drafts and also did not properly appreciate the evidence of D.Ws.2 and 3.
D.W-2 is said to be the scribe and document writer. The evidence of D.W-3 does not show the payment of money in his presence and he claims to have casually attested Ex.B-1. It is to be noted that both the Courts below have taken into consideration Exs.A-5 and A-6-charge sheet and report in C.C.No.362 of 2002, respectively, and held that the seven demand drafts which were sought to have been issued by the appellant were fraudulently encashed by himself and it is a subject matter of criminal case against the appellant. This circumstance clearly shows that the conduct of the appellant is not believable and when once a legal notice has been issued without return of the promissory note, it is difficult to believe that a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been paid by the appellant under Ex.B-1. There is also no evidence of the elders who said to have settled the dispute. Both the Courts below, even on the question of facts, have disbelieved the plea of discharge of the appellant. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal and the Second Appeal is devoid of merits.
The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________
JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
29th October 2012
DR

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.