The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the claim, and the court may rely on a preponderance of probabilities to reach a decision.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appeal, under Sec. 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the decree and Judgment dtd. 4/6/2012 in O.S.No.832 of 2009 passed by the learned V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada (for short, 'the trial court'). Respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S. No.832 of 2009 seeking recovery of Rs.4, 40, 112.00 with interest and costs from the defendants based on the promissory note.

2. Referring to the parties hereinafter as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate potential confusion and better comprehend the case.

3. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows: The 1st defendant has been doing business in the name and style of "Durga Enterprises' as its sole proprietor. 1st defendant, representing 2nd defendant, borrowed Rs.3, 00, 000.00 from the plaintiff on 19/3/2001 for his business purpose and executed the suit promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 30 % per annum. The plaintiff paid the said amount to the defendants through Demand Drafts bearing Nos.686481 to 686487. Subsequently, the defendants made a part payments towards interest and principal on different dates totalling Rs.1, 61, 100.00 by 12/2/2017, but they paid interest up to 3/12/2005 only. Subsequently, the defendants made a part payment of Rs.100.00. After that, the defendants failed to pay the balance despite the plaintiff's repeated demands. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dtd. 11/4/2009 to the defendants, calling upon them to pay the balance amount, but the defendants did not respond.

4. The 2nd defendant adopted the 1st defendant's written statement, wherein they refuted the plaint averments and contended that no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note and the same was fabricated and forged; part payments mentioned in the plaint are not true and correct; in fact, the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amounts; the plaintiff forged the endorsements made on the reverse of the promissory note to save limitation.

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

(1) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendants? (2) To what relief?

6. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 and X.1 to X.10. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant himself was examined as D.W.1, and no documents were marked.

7. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs against the defendants for Rs.4, 40, 112.00, with interest @ 12% p.a., on a principal amount of Rs.3, 00, 000.00from the date of suit till the date of decree, and after that at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till realization.

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and have gone through the Judgment and findings recorded by the learned trial Court while decreeing the suit. I have also reappreciated the entire evidence on record, including the deposition of relevant witnesses examined by both sides.

9. Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel representing the appellants/defendants, would submit thatthe trial Court has not dealt with the issues in proper perspective and has not considered the material evidence available on record; Ex.A.1 suit promissory note was a rank forged one and no consideration passed under it to the defendants; the trial Court erred in observing that the suit is in time; the trial Court instead of dismissing the suit on the ground of non-examination of any independent witness to prove the alleged transaction, erroneously thrown the liability on the defendants and decreed the suit; the trial Court reasoning in respect of Exs.X.1 to X.10 is not only erroneous but also contrary to the established principles of law;

10. Per contra