Execution of Promissory Note Not In Dispute, Defendant’s Narrative Improbable: AP High Court Affirms Liability in Rs.13 Lakh Borrowing Dispute
In a significant judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the bench presided by the Honourable Sri Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu dismissed the appeal challenging the validity of a promissory note involving a sum of Rs.13,00,000, thereby affirming the trial court’s decision.
Legal Context:
The case centered on the execution and subsequent dispute of a promissory note wherein the respondent, Potla Venkateshwarulu, was accused by the appellant, Gude Hari Babu, of failing to repay the full borrowed amount with interest as stipulated. The appeal contested the trial court’s decree that had ruled in favor of the plaintiff, confirming the debt owed by the defendant based on the promissory note.
Facts and Issues:
According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed Rs.13,00,000 for business purposes and partially repaid Rs.25,000, leaving a substantial balance unpaid. The defendant, however, contended that the amount was for a joint real estate venture and accused the plaintiff of fraud. The issues revolved around the authenticity of the promissory note and the purpose of the borrowed sum.
Court’s Assessment:
Execution of Promissory Note:
Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu pointed out that “Absolutely, execution of Ex.A.1 by the defendant is not in dispute.” The court found the defendant’s signature on the promissory note and his acknowledgment of partial payment as conclusive evidence supporting the note’s execution.
Discrepancies in Defendant’s Narrative:
The court noted several improbabilities in the defendant’s narrative, particularly his claims of the amount being for a real estate venture. There was no substantial evidence to corroborate his assertions, undermining his defense.
Witness Credibility:
The testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2, was consistent and corroborated the details of the promissory note. The court highlighted the inability of the defendant’s witness to discredit the plaintiff’s evidence effectively.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, citing no grounds to challenge the trial court’s findings. However, considering the partial payments already made, the court permitted the defendant to clear the remaining debt in three installments by July 31, 2024. Failure to comply with this directive would allow the plaintiff to execute the decree for the outstanding amount.
Date of Decision: April 19, 2024.
Gude Hari Babu v. Potla Venkateshwarulu
