This appeal is preferred by the defendant challenging the decree and judgment dated 11.10.2004 in A.S.No.5 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Allagadda, reversing the decree and judgment dated 10.4.2003 in O.S.No.174 of 1999 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Allagadda. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the suit.

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from him on 30.3.1997 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount. On 21.4.1998, the plaintiff got issued notice directing the defendant to repay the amount. The defendant issued a reply notice stating that the promissory note is a forged one. Hence, the suit.

The defendant filed written statement inter alia contending that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and the suit promissory note might have been forged and fabricated by the plaintiff keeping in mind the land dispute between them. The defendant also issued reply to the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff.

In the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 and C.W.1 were examined and Exs.X1 to X4 were marked.

On the analysis of oral, documentary evidence and other material available on record, the trial court arrived at a conclusion that the suit promissory note is forged one and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial court, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed A.S. No.5 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Allagadda. The first appellate court, after reappraising the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the suit promissory note is a valid one and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. The defendant, being aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the first appellate court, preferred the present appeal.

The substantial questions that are pleaded in this appeal are:

(1) Whether the lower appellate court is justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court by placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are interested witnesses?

(2) Whether the lower appellate court is justified in discarding the Ex.X1 along with Exs.X2 to X4 supported by the evidence of C.W.1?

(3) Whether the lower appellate court is justified in applying the principle laid down in the judgments reported in AIR 1982 Allahabad 323 and AIR 1964 SC 529 to the facts of the present case?

(4) Whether the lower appellate court properly framed the points for determination and answered the same properly in reversing the judgment of the trial court?

To substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the attestors and P.W.4 is the scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note. To dislodge the case of the plaintiff, defendant examined himself as D.W.1. C.W.1 is the expert through whom Exs.X1 to X4 were marked.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Point No.4:

A perusal of the record reveals that the first appellate court has framed the following two points for determination.

(i) Whether the evidence of the expert is conclusive and falsifies the direct evidence of the attesting witnesses?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for recovery of suit amount?

It is needless to say that the appeal is continuation of the suit. A legal obligation is cast on the part of the first appellate court to answer all the issues framed by the trial court or should frame the points of law and facts covering the issues framed by trial court and answer them properly. The trial court had framed only one issue i.e., whether the suit promissory note is forged document. The second point framed by the first appellate court covers the issue framed by the tria