Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J.
Dundi Mohan Rao – Appellant
Versus
Ponnada Gangadhar – Respondent
Appeal Suit No.210 of 2017
Decided on : 15-09-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 – Appeal, under Section 96 CPC, aggrieved by decree & judgment, passed in O.S. on file of Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge – Held, Except oral evidence denying suit transaction, no other evidence could be brought in by him to disbelieve case of plaintiff – Manner of proving a disputed signature can be through oral evidence of an eyewitness who has seen signing or has acquaintance with signature or has been told by signatory that he signed or with aid of opinion of an expert – Plaintiff examined attestor – Neither of parties sought opinion of an expert – In present case, except disputed signature, there are no other admitted signatures of defendant contemporaneously made during period of promissory note – Signatures on vakalat, written statement or evidence cannot be taken as standard signatures for comparison as there is every likelihood of disguising – Thus, though plaintiff could discharge initial burden of proving that suit promissory note was executed by defendant and consideration therein was passed, onus shifted to defendant could not be discharged by him – Therefore, appellant/defendant could not show any valid reasons to interfere with findings and the reasons assigned by trial Court – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT:
This appeal, under Section 96 CPC, aggrieved by the decree & judgment, dated 17.10.2016, passed in O.S.No.181 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka.
2. Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:
4. The defendant filed written statement denying his liability for the suit claim and contending that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor did he execute any promissory note, much less the suit promissory note. He has no necessity to borrow such amount, since he is an employee in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant on monthly salary. The plaintiff forged and fabricated the suit promissory note to make wrongful gain to him and wrongful loss to the defendant, in collusion with the scribe and the attestor. The defendant does not know the plaintiff, the scribe and the attestors of the suit promissory note.
5. Basing the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:-
(iii) To what relief?
On behalf of plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW 1 and Dasari Appa Rao was examined as PW2. The promissory note was marked as exhibit A1 on the side of the plaintiff. The defendant himself was examined as DW1. No document was marked on his side.
6. After hearing both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.6,02,400/-with costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.
7. Aggrieved by the decree & judgment of the trial Court, the defendant preferred this appeal.
8. While reiterating his pleaded case, the defendant further urged in the grounds of appeal that the trial court ought to have dismissed the suit as the plaintiff could not prove execution of the promissory note and passing of consideration, that the trial Court failed to consider that the appellant, respondent and the attestor are all employees of the Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, and all of them were present at their respective duties in the Steel Plant and the appellant preferred application seeking to summon the Manager of the concerned department of the Steel Plant for production of original Attendance Register, however, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the defendant to reopen his evidence and erroneously proceeded to dispose of the suit, that the trial court having closed the evidence of the defendant, has wrongly observed that there is no evidence produced by the defendant, that the trial Court failed to notice that there is so much variation between the signature on Exhibit A1 and the signature on the vakalat and written statement, and therefore, it ought to have compared the signatures with the assistance of an expert, that the rate of i
The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery, and the validity of a promissory note can be established through signature comparison.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the execution of the promissory note and passing of consideration, and the credibility of witnesses and consistency of evidence are crucial in....
The presumption of consideration applies to promissory notes once execution is admitted, placing the burden on the defendant to prove otherwise.
The burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff to establish the execution and validity of the promissory note, and the Court can compare signatures to determine authenticity.
The burden of proof lies with the one alleging forgery, and execution of a promissory note must be proven by comparing signatures to establish validity.
The preponderance of probabilities and the burden of proof under the Evidence Act are crucial in civil cases.
In a suit for recovery based on a promissory note, if the defendant denies execution, the initial burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish due....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
