IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: CHITTOOR

Present: Sri [Link] Rao

Principal District Judge, Chittoor.

Wednesday, the Twenty Ninth (29th) day of November, 2023

[Link]. 48 of 2017
Between :­

[Link] Reddy ... Plaintiff.

And :­

1. [Link] Reddy (died)

2. [Link]
3. [Link] (minor) rep., by her next friend
natural guardian and mother 2nd defendant.
4. [Link].
(The defendants 2 to 4 are added as per orders
in [Link].24 of 2021 dated 18.02.2022 as
legal heirs of deceased 1st defendant). ...Defendants.

This suit coming on 14.11.2023 for final hearing before me, in the
presence of Sri [Link], Advocate for plaintiff, and of Sri
[Link] Reddy, Advocate for defendants and upon perusing the
material papers available on record, and upon hearing arguments of both
sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the
court delivered the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit filed against the defendants for recovery of

Rs.30,19,133/­ together with costs and interest at 24% p.a., from out of the

estate of the deceased 1st defendant, which is lying in the hands of the

defendants 2 to 4.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief according to the plaint averments is

that the 1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.23,00,000/­ from the plaintiff

on 13.03.2016 for his family necessities and for doing business and in

consideration received thereof, the defendant executed a promissory note on

 :: 2 ::

the same day in favour of plaintiff promising to repay the same together with

interest at 24% per annum. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands the

defendants failed to repay the amount due under the promissory note. The

plaintiff is not able to issue legal notice as the defendant is intending to

migrate the family and attempting to alienate the properties, with a view to

evade the payment of the debt due under the promissory note to the

plaintiff. On 02.07.2017 the defendant approached the real estate brokers

and requested to sell his properties. The defendant is doing business apart

from the agriculture and he borrowed the amount for the purpose of doing

business and also for his family necessities. The defendant is a wealthy

pattadar and not entitled to get any benefits under Act.4 of 38 or Act 2 of 90.

Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments.

The defendant pleaded that there is no necessity for him to borrow the huge

amount from the plaintiff for the purpose of family necessity and doing

business. Since the defendant did not borrow the promissory note amount,

he did not execute the alleged promissory note in favour of plaintiff. The

defendant did not take any consideration from the plaintiff as stated by him.

The suit promissory is a forged and created document at the instance of one

[Link] Reddy, who is the own brother of the plaintiff and the alleged

scribe of suit promissory note and the attestors namely [Link] Basha and

[Link]. There is no demand at any time from the plaintiff. The defendant

has no necessity to migrate the family from Krishna Puram village. The

defendant is a small farmer and he is entitled to get benefits under Act.4 of

38 and Act 2 of 90. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, prayed

to dismiss the suit.

 :: 3 ::

4. The defendant filed additional written statement and pleaded that

while his counsel taking instructions from him for cross­examination of

PW.1, some material facts came to light that one [Link] Reddy, who is

the younger brother of the plaintiff filed a suit in [Link].49 of 2017 on the

file of IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor against one [Link] Babu,

who is the elder of this defendant for recovery of alleged suit amount and at

the time of alleged promissory note the said [Link] Reddy obtained the

signature of this defendant on the blank papers, as security purpose for the

alleged promissory note amount. Subsequently basing on the signature

obtained on empty papers, the said [Link] Reddy and the plaintiff herein

colluded with each other and forged his signature and created, fabricated the

alleged promissory note and filed this suit. The defendant is an agricultural

labour and he used to get Rs.250/­ per day and his wife and daughter are

depending upon him for their livelihood. Further, because of drought

condition, weekly two or three days only he is earning coolie work. The

plaintiff must establish his financial capacity. The plaintiff is a money lender

and well versed in fleecing debtors and accustomed to take undue

advantage of them by unfair and illegal methods with the idea of getting

wrongful gain from helpless innocent debtors. The plaintiff has suppressed

the material facts and obtained the signatures of this defendant on empty

papers by stating as a security to the brother of this defendant. Hence,

prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. The plaintiff filed rejoinder by denying the averments mentioned in

the additional written statement and pleaded that the trial was commenced

in the suit on 18.04.2019 and chief­affidavit of PW.1 was filed on

18.04.2019 and this court granted four adjournments for cross­examination

 :: 4 ::

of PW.1, but the defendant failed to cross­examine PW.1 and this court

treated the cross­examination of PW.1 as NIL and on 26.07.2019 the chief­

affidavit of PW.2 was filed and posted the matter for cross­examination of

PW.1. But instead of cross­examine PW.2 the defendant filed the additional

written statement with false and vexatious allegations. Though the plaintiff

filed the suit on 03.07.2017, the defendant protracted the matter and filed

written statement on 20.08.2018. The suit in [Link].49 of 2017 is no way

connected to the present suit. The additional written statement cannot be

filed after commencement of trial, therefore, it cannot be looked into.

6. Subsequently, the sole defendant died. After the death of sole

defendant, the plaintiff amended the plaint as per orders in [Link].24 of

2021 dated 18.02.2022 by adding the defendants 2 to 4 as legal heirs of

deceased 1st defendant and pleaded that the 1 st defendant borrowed the

money for the welfare of the defendants 2 to 4 and the defendants 2 to 4

have succeeded the estate of the deceased 1st defendant, as such they are

liable to pay the suit debt.

7. After amendment of the plaint, the 4th defendant filed written

statement, which was adopted by the defendants 2 and 3. The 4 th defendant

denied the averments mentioned in the plaint. The 4 th defendant has pleaded

similar averments as mentioned in the written statement, filed by the 1 st

defendant. The 4th defendant further pleaded that the defendants 2 to 4 did

not know anything about the alleged suit promissory note and about the

filing of the case and they came to know about the filing of the case only

when they have received the summons from this court. In fact no demand

was made by the plaintiff. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

 :: 5 ::

8. Based on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 13.03.2016 is

devoid of consideration?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount
of Rs.30,19,133/­?
3. Whether the defendant is entitled benefit of 4 of 1938
and Act 2 of 1990 as Small farmer?
4. To what relief?

9. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined

himself as PW.1 besides examining one [Link] Basha, who is one of the

attestors of promissory note, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A­1 and A.2. The

defendants 2 and 4 examined themselves as Dws­1 and 2, but no documents

are marked on their behalf.

When the suit is coming up for the further evidence of defendants, as

per the proceedings of this court in [Link].5036/[Link]., dated

24.07.2023, the above suit was withdrawn from the file of VI Additional

District Court, Chittoor and transferred to this court for disposal in

accordance with law.

10. Heard both sides and perused the case record. Besides submitting the

oral arguments, both sides counsel filed their respective written arguments.

Perused the same.

11. Issues 1 and 2:

As the findings on each issue are interlinked with each other, it is

desirable and convenient to discuss and decide these two issues jointly.

12. The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.23,00,000/­ from him on 13.03.2016 for his family necessities and also

for doing business and in consideration received thereof, the 1 st defendant

 :: 6 ::

executed Ex.A.1 promissory note on the same day in his favour by promising

to repay the same together with interest at 24% per annum. Subsequently,

inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the 1 st defendant failed to

repay the amount due under the promissory note. The plaintiff is not able to

issue legal notice as the 1st defendant is intending to migrate the family and

attempting to alienate the properties, with a view to evade the payment of

the debt due under Ex.A.1 promissory note to the plaintiff. On 02.07.2017

the defendant approached the real estate brokers and requested to sell his

properties. The 1st defendant is doing business apart from the agriculture and

he borrowed the amount for the purpose of doing business and also for his

family necessities. The defendant is a wealthy pattadar and therefore, he is

not entitled to get any benefits under Act.4 of 38 or Act 2 of 90.

Subsequently the original borrower i.e., the 1st defendant died. After the

death of 1st defendant, the plaintiff brought the defendants 2 to 4 as legal

heirs of deceased 1st defendant by contending that the 1 st defendant

borrowed the money for the welfare of the defendants 2 to 4 and the

defendants 2 to 4 have succeeded the estate of the deceased 1 st defendant, as

such they are liable to pay the suit debt.

13. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on his

self­ testimony as Pw.1 and in order to prove his case he also relied on the

evidence of PW.2, who is the one of the attestors of Ex.A.1 and also Exs.A.1

and A.2. The plaintiff reiterated the contents of plaint in his evidence

affidavit as PW.1. PW.1 deposed in his evidence about borrowing of amount

of Rs.23,00,000/­ by the 1st defendant and also execution of Ex.A­1

promissory note in his favour on 13.03.2016. The evidence of PW.1 further

 :: 7 ::

reveals that inspite of demands made by him, the 1 st defendant failed to

repay the amount due under Ex.A.1 and the 1 st defendant is intending to

migrate his family and attempting to alienate the properties, with a view to

evade the payment of the debt due under Ex.A.1 promissory note to the

plaintiff. Actually on 02.07.2017 the 1 st defendant approached the real

estate brokers and requested to sell his properties. Though the plaintiff

specifically pleaded in his plaint and stated in his evidence about the

borrowing of amount and execution of Ex.A.1 by the 1 st defendant, the 1st

defendant did not come forward to cross­examine PW.1, though conditional

order was passed by this court. Since the 1 st defendant did not comply the

conditional order and did not come forward to cross­examine PW.1, this

court treated the cross­examination of PW.1 by the 1 st defendant as ‘NIL’ on

07.06.2019. The 1st defendant also did not take any steps to reopen the case

and to re­call PW.1 for the purpose of his cross­examination. This court

proceeded to record the further evidence of plaintiff. Subsequently, the 1 st

defendant died on 12.06.2021 and after the death of 1 st defendant, the

defendants 2 to 4 came on record. The defendants 2 to 4 also did not take

any steps to reopen the case and to re­call PW.1 for the purpose of his cross­

examination. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 trustworthy and believable.

14. The evidence of PW.1 further reveals that the suit promissory note

was scribed by [Link] Reddy and attested by [Link] Basha and

[Link]. To discharge his burden, the plaintiff examined the first attestor

of Ex.A.1 promissory note as PW.2. PW.2 deposed in his evidence about the

borrowing of amount of Rs.23,00,000­00 by the 1 st defendant from the

plaintiff and also execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note by the 1 st defendant in

favour of plaintiff. His evidence further goes to show that the suit promissory
 :: 8 ::

note was scribed by [Link] Reddy and he is the first attestor and one

[Link] is the 2nd attestor. The evidence of PW.2 further goes to show that

he was called by the 1st defendant to act as an attestor. During his cross­

examination PW.2 deposed that nearly 15 to 20 minutes time was taken for

preparation and execution of suit promissory note after payment of the

amount. He further deposed that the 1 st defendant brought the promissory

note, hence he does not know from where he brought the promissory note.

He further deposed that the plaintiff and 1 st defendant are dayadis. He

further deposed that the amount of Rs.23,00,000/­ was paid in his presence

and the denomination of Rs.23,00,000/­ is 500 rupee notes of 46 bundles,

each bundle containing 100 pieces. He denied the suggestion that the suit

promissory note was executed by the 1 st defendant as security for the

promissory note transaction between [Link] Reddy and [Link] Babu

and the same was created by the plaintiff, himself and Krishna Reddy and

got filed false suit. He also denied the suggestion that he was not present at

the time of execution and transaction of suit promissory note and he is

deposing falsehood and the suit promissory note was created. The evidence

of PW.2 is well corroborated with the evidence of PW.1.

15. In order to prove the defence of the defendants and to disprove the

case of the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant examined herself as DW­1. Her

evidence in chief affidavit is nothing but the pleadings mentioned in written

statements. She deposed in her cross­examination that her marriage with the

1st defendant is a love marriage and by the date of her marriage with 1 st

defendant, the 1st defendant was doing cultivation and he used to raise beans

and tomatoes. She pleaded ignorance about the raising banana crop by her
 :: 9 ::

husband in five acres of land and earned Rs.25,00,000/­. She pleaded

ignorance for most of the questions posed in her cross­examination. She

admitted that her husband is not in the habit of subscribing his signatures on

false documents.

16. The 4th defendant examined herself as DW.2. Her evidence in chief

affidavit is nothing but the pleadings mentioned in written statements. She

deposed in her cross­examination that the plaintiff’s family is a respectable

family in their village. She further deposed that her son is having one acre of

land. She admitted that her son i.e., 1 st defendant has no habit of executing

false documents and bonds. She further deposed in her cross­examination

that her daughter­in­law is in possession of properties of her son i.e., 1 st

defendant. DW.2 also pleaded ignorance for most of the questions posed in

her cross­examination.

17. The important circumstance to believe the case of the plaintiff is that

the 1st defendant did not shown any interest to cross­examine PW.1 though

he deposed about the borrowing of Rs.23,00,000/­ by the 1 st defendant and

execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note. The plaintiff has discharged his burden

by examining the one of the attestors of the suit promissory note as PW­2.

The evidence of PW.1 is well corroborated by the evidence of PW­2 in all

aspects. To rebut the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.A.1 the defendants did

not choose to adduce any evidence except the self­serving testimony of

defendants 2 and 4. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the 1 st

defendant borrowed amount of Rs.23,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on

13.03.2016 and executed Ex.A.1. Learned counsel for the defendants elicited

during the cross­examination of PW.2 about the denomination of amount

 :: 10 ::

and passing of consideration. The plaintiff explained the reason for not

issuing the legal notice before filing of the suit. Moreover, Ex.A.1 suit

promissory note is dated 13.03.2016 and the suit is filed on 03.07.2017 i.e.,

within one and half year of execution of Ex.A.1.

18. No doubt, the initial burden was on the plaintiff to establish the

execution of Ex.A.1 Promissory Note as the defendants contended that the

suit Promissory Note was a forged one. Burden of proof lies upon the person

who has to prove the fact and it never shifts. Therefore, in this case based on

promissory note the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the

execution. Once the burden is discharged, the onus shifts on the defendants.

Such shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence.

Hence, in a suit based on promissory note, once the plaintiff has been able

to create a high degree of probability the onus shifts on the defendants. For

proving that the suit Promissory Note Ex.A.1 is a valid document, the

plaintiff examined PW.2 one of the attestors of Ex.A.1. PW.2 corroborated

the evidence of PW.1 in all material aspects i.e., passing of consideration and

execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note in his presence. Though the 1 st

defendant denied about the execution of Ex.A.1 and he pleaded about the

forgery of his signature, he did not take any steps to send Ex.A.1 to the

handwriting expert.

19. The plaintiff by examining one of the attestor as PW.2, has proved that

Ex.A.1 was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff. It would thus

be clear that when the suit is based on promissory note, and promissory note

is proved to have been executed, Section 118(a) raises the presumption,

 :: 11 ::

until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for

consideration. That initial presumption raised under Section 118(a) becomes

unavailable when the plaintiff himself pleads in the plaint considerations. If

he pleads that the promissory note is supported by a consideration as recited

in the negotiable instrument and the evidence adduced in support thereof,

the burden is on the defendants to disprove that the promissory note is not

supported by consideration. But the defendants have not taken any steps to

rebut the said presumption. At this juncture, this Court would like to rely on

the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bharat Barrel and Drum

Manufacturing Company Vs. Amin Chand Payrelal, reported in AIR

1999 Supreme Court 1008, wherein, it was held that

“In a suit on a promissory note, the case of the defendant as to

the circumstances under which the promissory note was
executed is not accepted, it is open to the defendant to prove
that the case set up by the plaintiff on the basis of the recitals
in the promissory note, or the case set up in suit notice or in the
plant is not true and rebut the presumption under Sec.118 by
showing a preponderance of probabilities in his favour and
against the plaintiff. He need not lead evidence on all
conceivable modes of consideration for establishing that the
promissory note is not supported by any consideration
whatsoever. The words 'until the contrary is proved' in Sec.118
do not mean that the defendant must necessarily show that the
document is not supported by any form of consideration but
the defendant has the option to ask the Court to consider the
non­existence of consideration so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the case, to act upon the
supposition that consideration did not exist. Though the
evidential burden is initially placed on the defendant by virtue
of Sec.118 it can be rebutted by the defendant by showing a
 :: 12 ::

preponderance of probabilities that such consideration as stated

in the pronote, or in the suit notice or in plant does not exist
and once the presumption is so rebutted, the said presumption
'disappears'. For the purpose of rebutting the initial evidential
burden, the defendant can rely on direct evidence or
circumstantial evidence or on presumptions of law or fact.
Once such convincing rebuttal evidence is adduced and
accepted by the Court, having regard to all the circumstances of
the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential
burden shifts back to the plaintiff who has also the legal
burden. Thereafter, the presumption under Sec. 118 does not
again come to the plaintiff's rescue. Once both parties have
adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the
burden of proof loses all its importance.”

Here, in the present case also, to discharge his liability, the plaintiff

examined himself as PW.1 and also examined the first attestor in the

promissory note as PW.2. The evidence of PW.1 is well corroborated by the

evidence of PW.2. Though the defendants simply pleaded that the 1 st

defendant never executed Ex.A.1 promissory note and they have not taken

any steps to prove the said contention by adducing cogent evidence and

moreover Dw.1 admitted in her cross­examination that the 1 st defendant is

not in the habit of subscribing his signatures on false documents. Likewise,

DW.2 also admitted in her cross­examination that her son i.e., 1 st defendant

has no habit of executing false documents and bonds. Further, the

defendants have not examined any independent witness to prove their

contention. Moreover, the interested testimony of the defendants 2 and 4 as

DWs.1 and 2 alone could not be taken as such strong evidence to dispel or

rebut the presumption created under Section 118 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. Therefore, it can be held that the defendants failed to rebut
 :: 13 ::

the presumption under Sec.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Except

general suggestions that transactions of such nature did not take place in his

presence and the defendant has no necessity to borrow the amount and the

plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount, no other suggestion was put to

the witness on behalf of the defendants specifically referring to

circumstances under which the promissory note was executed. Evidence of

P.W.1 stood supported and corroborated by the testimony of P.W.2. Thus the

material on record positively indicates and proves that Ex.A.1 promissory

note was executed by the 1st defendant after borrowing money thereunder

from the plaintiff.

20. The learned counsel for the defendants argued that the 1 st defendant

has taken the plea of forgery and he died during the pendency of the suit.

Therefore, it is the duty of the plaintiff to take steps to send the suit

promissory note for comparison to expert. But the plaintiff has not taken any

steps to send Ex.A.1 document to handwriting expert. As such, the plaintiff is

not entitled for recover the suit amount and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

21. Sec. 101 of Indian Evidence Act defines the Burden of proof. Whoever

desires any court to give Judgment as to any legal right or liability

dependent on the existence or facts which he asserts, must prove that those

facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is

said that the burden of proof lies on that person. The principle says that the

burden of proving a fact rests on the party, who substantially asserts the

affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it. When a fact is

to be established in a court of law the burden of proving the fact lies on that

person, who wishes the court to believe in its existence. In the case on hand
 :: 14 ::

the 1st defendant denied the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note. Therefore,

the burden lies on him. Admittedly, the 1st defendant died during the

pendency of the suit. After death of 1 st defendant, the defendants 2 to 4

came on record as legal heirs of deceased 1 st defendant. Since the defendants

2 to 4, who continued the proceedings as legal heirs of the deceased 1 st

defendant, the burden of proving a fact rests on them, but not upon the

plaintiff, who denies it. Therefore, there is no force in the above arguments

advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants.

22. Learned counsel for the defendants further argued that there is

nothing to show that the defendants 2 to 4 inherited the estate of the

deceased 1st defendant so as to fasten liability on the defendants 2 to 4 to

repay the debts incurred by the 1 st defendant, as such, the suit is not

maintainable and in support of his contention he has relied on a decision of

Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Govindammal and another Vs.

Bhuvaneswari Financing, reported in AIR 2002 Mad 296. Wherein, it is

held that

“Nothing has been pleaded on the part of the plaintiff to the effect
as to what were the estates left by the deceased Ethlrajulu Naidu
and how these defendants and to what extent they inherited the
estate left by Ethirajulu Naidu. Unless these aspects are pleaded and
proved by the plaintiff with sufficient evidence, no cause of action
would arise for the plaintiff to claim anything from the defendants
since the defendants would not be liable to repay the debts of the
deceased unless they have inherited the estate of the deceased worth
the debts left by the deceased.”

This is the settled proposition of law and one cannot dispute the same.

But, in the case on hand, the plaintiff pleaded that the defendant ( 1 st

defendant) is a wealthy pattadar. Apart from pleadings, the plaintiff filed

Ex.A.2, which contains two 1B forms. The first 1B form in Ex.A.2 shows that
 :: 15 ::

the 1st defendant is having Ac.1.00 of land in Krishnapuram of [Link]

Mandal. The second 1B form in Ex.A.2 shows that the father of 1 st defendant

is having Ac.6.14 cents of land in Krishnapuram of [Link] Mandal. As per the

evidence of DW.1 the father of 1st defendant died. Therefore, it can be said

that being the legal heir, the 1st defendant might have get some share in the

properties of his father. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has pleaded and

proved that the 1st defendant had left some of the properties, which were in

the hands of the defendants 2 to 4. Therefore, there is no force in the above

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants.

23. The learned counsel for the defendants further argued that in a suit

for recovery of money based on promissory note it is for the plaintiff to

establish his case and that the defendants need not take any steps to

disprove the plaintiff’s case and in support of his contention he has relied

on a decision reported in 2009(1) CTC­ page No.728.

24. Though the learned counsel for the defendants has mentioned about

the decision reported in 2009(1) CTC­ page No.728 in his written

arguments, but, the copy of the said decision was not enclosed along with

the written arguments. It is incumbent on the part of the learned counsel for

the defendants to file copy of decision, on which, he placed reliance.

Moreover, he has not mentioned the names of the parties to the said

decision. However, this court mulled over in tracing the said decision, but

could not find it. The fact remained is that it is settled principle that in a suit

for recovery of money basing on promissory note, the initial burden lies on

the plaintiff to establish his case. Here, as already discussed above, the

plaintiff has discharged his initial burden and proved his case by
 :: 16 ::

preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, there is no force in the above

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants.

25. Learned counsel for the defendants further argued that mutation of

property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor does it

have any presumptive value on the title and it only enables the person in

whose favour of mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.

Therefore, Ex.A.2 did not prove the title of the deceased 1 st defendant over

the property and it cannot be taken into consideration to show the title of 1 st

defendant over any property and in support of his contention he has relied

on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sawarni (smt.) Vs.

Inder Kour, reported in 1996 (6) SCC 223, wherein it was held that

“Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create

or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It
only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to
pay the land revenue in question.”

This is the settled proposition of law and one cannot dispute the same.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the said settled proposition

law in a suit for declaration of title and possession over the disputed land.

Here, the present suit is filed for recovery of the amount from the estate of

the deceased 1st defendant, which is lying in the hands of the defendants 2 to

4, but not for declaration of title. Admittedly, this court attached the

property of the 1st defendant on 18.08.2017, but no one come forward with

objections that the said attached property belongs to them. Therefore, there

is no force in the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

defendants.
 :: 17 ::

26. The evidence produced by the plaintiff is sufficient to prove that the

1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.23,00,000­00 from the plaintiff under

Ex.A.1 promissory note in the presence of attestors and executed Ex.A.1

promissory note and subsequently the 1 st defendant failed to repay the same.

To rebut the the evidence of plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to

adduce any cogent evidence. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the

plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed.

27. In view of my above discussion, it is clear that the consideration was

passed under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and it is true, valid and binding on

the 1st defendant. Since, the 1st defendant died, the plaintiff is entitled the

suit claim as prayed in the plaint from and out of the estate of the deceased

1st defendant, which is in the hands of the defendants 2 to 4.. Accordingly,

Issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

28. Issue No.3:

The 1st defendant pleaded in his written statement that he is a small

farmer and he is entitled to get benefits under Act.4 of 38 and Act 2 of 90.

After the death of 1st defendant, the 4th defendant, who filed additional

written statement pleaded that the 1st defendant is a small farmer. But the

defendants have not taken any steps to prove that the 1 st defendant is a small

farmer. On the other hand, the plaintiff contended that the 1 st defendant is a

wealthy pattadar and doing business apart from the agriculture.

29. In order to prove the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed

colour xerox copy of news paper, wherein, it was published that the 1 st

defendant has completed [Link] course and as he did not secure job, he turned
 :: 18 ::

his five acres of land as agriculture scientific center and fixed a solar motor

by spending an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ and raised banana crop and earned

Rs.5,00,000/­ per acre. During the cross­examination of DW.1 when the

plaintiff tried to put questions by showing the said paper publication article,

the learned counsel for the defendants raised objection on the ground that it

is a colour xerox copy and the plaintiff did not file the original news papers.

It was recorded in the deposition that the objection taken by the learned

counsel for the defendants is sustained. Therefore, the said paper publication

article is not taken into consideration.

30. The plaintiff also filed the statement of account of the 1 st defendant.

Which shows that the deceased 1st defendant was having Account bearing

No.31131866130 in State Bank of India, [Link] branch. It further shows that

the 1st defendant made transactions in lakhs of rupees. When the learned

counsel for the plaintiff suggested to DW.1 that in the year 2016 her

husband debited Rs.53,50,225/­ from the account bearing No.31131866130

and credited Rs.53,11,771/­ to the said account, she pleaded ignorance. The

said suggestion was also put to DW.2 and she also pleaded ignorance. When

the plaintiff filed the statement of account of the 1 st defendant and pleading

that the 1st defendant made transactions in lakhs of rupees through the

account bearing No.31131866130, the defendants have not taken any steps

to disprove the same. Moreover, the defendants did not deny the said fact,

but they only pleaded ignorance. Therefore, it has to be held that the

plaintiff has proved that the 1st defendant is not a small farmer and the

material on record especially the copy of statement of account of the 1 st

defendant reveals that the 1st defendant during his life time made several

transactions amounting lakhs of rupees. This court is of the view that a small
 :: 19 ::

farmer cannot be able to handle with lakhs of rupees in his bank account. It

is also not the case of the defendants that the 1 st defendant was not having

any lands as alleged by the plaintiff, as such, the 1 st defendant is not entitled

the benefit of Act 4 of 1938 and Act 2 of 1990.

31. Issue No.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled

to recover the suit amount of Rs.30,19,133/­ together with subsequent

interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree

and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal

amount of Rs.23,00,000/­ from and out of the estate of the deceased 1st

defendant, which is lying in the hands of the defendants 2 to 4.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, this the 29th day of November, 2023.

Sd/­ [Link] Rao

Principal District Judge,
Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF :­ DEFENDANTS:­
PW.1: [Link] Reddy DW.1: [Link]
PW.2: [Link] Basha. DW.2: [Link].

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF:­
Sl. Exhibit Date of Description of document
No. No. Document
1. Ex.A­1 13.03.2016 Demand promissory note executed by 1 st defendant
in favour of plaintiff.
2. Ex.A­2 ­­ Two 1B extracts

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

Sd/­ [Link] Rao

Principal District Judge,
Chittoor.