- (1.)Heard Sri B.C.Reddy, representing Sri B.Seetharamaiah, counsel for the appellant-defendant and Sri A.Ananta Reddy, counsel representing the respondent.
(2.)The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is the appellant herein. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.379 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Khammam, for recovery of money of Rs.10,757/-, which was decreed and aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.5 of 1991 on the file of the District Judge, Khammam and the learned District Judge also had dismissed the appeal and aggrieved by the same the present second appeal is filed. Sri B.C.Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellant-defendant had pointed out that ground 8 (2) of the grounds of appeal is the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The learned counsel also, apart from, pointing out this question of law had submitted that the suit was decreed mainly on the strength of the admissions made relating to the execution of Ex.A.1, the bond, which is not a negotiable instrument. But however, the courts below had appreciated the evidence as though the principles relating to the execution of negotiable instrument in appreciation of evidence relating to burden of proof can be extended even in a case of this nature and in the light of this background the factual aspects, involved in the matter, are to be appreciated. The learned counsel also had pointed that there is no dispute between the parties relating to the nature of document Ex.A.1, which is a bond since it was treated so and the stamp duty penalty was also collected in this regard.
(3.)The learned counsel further pointed that the evidence of D.W.1 coupled with the evidence of the elders or mediators, D.W.2 and D.W.3, definitely will clearly establish that Ex.A.1 was executed by the appellant-defendant in favour of respondent-plaintiff in relation to a disputed claim made by a stranger and subject to a future settlement of the dispute by village elders and hence, it cannot be said that Ex.A.1 is supported by consideration and in this view of the matter both the courts have totally erred in passing a decree on the strength of Ex.A.1, especially in the light of the nature of evidence led in by the respondent-plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, had also taken me through the relevant portions of the findings recorded and the learned counsel also relied upon decisions reported in DORAISAMI PADAYACHI V. VAITHILINGA PADAYACHI and M.G.GURUBASAPPA V. RUDRIAH. Per contra, Sri Ananta Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff had submitted that the question raised by the counsel for the appellant cannot be said to be a question of law at all. Since on appreciation of all the facts and circumstances and the evidence led in by both the parties, both the Courts below had arrived at the conclusion that the appellant-defendant is liable to pay the amount and decreed the suit as prayed for. In the light of the findings recorded by both the Courts the present second appeal is liable to be dismissed. Heard both the counsel and also perused the oral and documentary evidence.