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 determining the outcome of the case.

JUDGMENT :

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/defendant challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 04.11.2003, in O.S. No.6 of 2000 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,88,200/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 01.02.1997 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.4,00,000/- and for costs.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.6 of 2000, are as under:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.02.1997 for the purpose of development of his business and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. But inspite of demands made by the plaintiff, defendant did not choose to pay any amount and has been postponing the same on one pretext or other. Plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendant on 22.01.2000. The defendant received the same and kept quite. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

5. The defendant filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

This defendant did not execute the suit promissory note and it is a fabricated and forged document. Plaintiff is no other than the nephew of one Doreddi Gandhi. This defendant and the said Gandhi carried on a joint business in Pharmaceuticals. His wife was shown as a partner in the said business under the name and style of Sai Poorna Agencies. The said Gandhi, himself and on behalf of his wife was attending day to day transactions in respect of said business. In the said transactions Gandhi obtained the signatures of this defendant on several blank papers with stamps and without stamps, accordingly, the suit promissory note was brought into existence, through the plaintiff. This defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the suit pronote dated 01.02.1997 is true and correct and binding on defendant?

(ii) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked.

8. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 04.11.2003, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.

9. Heard Sri T.Raghu, learned counsel, representing Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for appellant/defendant and Sri Srinivasa Rao Kurapati, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff.

10. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination:

1. Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff proved the execution of suit pronote and the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference?

11. Point No.1 :

Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff proved the execution of suit pronote and the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

The claim of the plaintiff is based on Ex.A1 pronote said to have been executed by the defendant, since there is a plea of forgery and denial of execution of suit pronote, the burd