The preponderance of probabilities and the burden of proof under the Evidence Act are crucial in civil cases.

JUDGMENT :

The appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.5 of 2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,59,750/- with costs and also with future interest.

4. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of business agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 11-01-2002 at Kotabommali village. In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the amount due under the suit promissory note and postponed the repayment. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 19-11-2004 demanding him to pay the amount with interest, which was returned with an endorsement that the defendant was found absent. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of amount.

5. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows :

The defendant denied the plaint allegations. It is contended that the transaction is not correct and the plaintiff is not known to him. He never executed the suit promissory note and he has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time. He had no necessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff or from anybody. He contended that the attestors and scribe are henchmen of the plaintiff and they might have colluded together and fabricated the suit promissory note with a view to harass him defendant. Since the suit promissory note is denied and unenforceable, the suit is liable to be dismissed. He prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court:

(1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration ? and

(2) To what relief ?

7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and also examined the attestor and scribe of the promissory note as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Ex.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant is examined as D.W.1 and no documentary evidence is adduced on his behalf.

8. After completion of trial and hearing arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.4,59,750/- with costs and also with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

9. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed the present appeal questioning the finding given by the trial Court.

10. Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

11. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the respondent/plaintiff has no capacity to lend money and Ex.A-1 suit promissory note is brought into existence. She would further contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper manner and came to wrong conclusion and decreed the suit.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent would contend that on appreciation of the entire material on record, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the trial Court.

13. Now, the points for determination are:

(1) Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff proved the execution of suit promissory note and the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

(2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? and

(3) To what extent ?

14. Point No.1:- Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff proved the execution of suit promisso