JUDGMENT

BANDARU SYAMSUNDER, J. - The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 1995 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Nellore. The 1st respondent/1st defendant died during pendency of the suit, and the 2nd respondent/ 2nd defendant added as legal representative of the 1st respondent/ 1st defendant in the suit. Originally, the suit was instituted by the appellant against the 1st respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.1, 87, 880.00 with interest and costs, and after the death of the 1st respondent/1st defendant, sought decree against the estate of the 1st defendant in the hands of the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant.

2. The appellant and the 2nd respondent hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and 2nd defendant as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the 1st defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1, 87, 880.00 with interest against the estate of the 1st defendant in the hands of the 2nd defendant. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant, who is no other than his sister had borrowed a sum of Rs.1, 22, 000.00 from him and agreed to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum, and executed Ex.A1/promissory note on 10/12/1991, who agreed to repay the debt after selling the house property stands in her name, settled by her husband. The plaintiff submits that the husband of the 1st defendant died, and thereafter he went to Kanigiri to attend funerals and returned to Nellore, and then the 1st defendant executed a sale deed in favour of his relatives as if she sold the house property for Rs.1, 50, 000.00. The plaintiff said to be demanded the 1st defendant to repay his debt, which she has not repaid.

4. The 1st defendant filed written statement, admitting the relationship with the plaintiff, but pleaded that Ex.A1/suit promissory note is forged one. She submits that for medical treatment of her husband, she went to Madras along with her adopted son/2nd defendant, and there was no necessity for her to borrow money from the plaintiff.

5. The 2nd defendant, who impleaded as per Orders in IA No.271 of 2003, dtd. 25/8/2003 as one of the defendant, resisted the claim of the plaintiff. He also took the plea of forgery of suit promissory note, though pleaded that he is adopted son of the 1st defendant.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues:-

1. "Whether the suit promissory note is true?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

3. To what relief

4. Whether the 2nd defendant is liable to discharge the suit claim"?

7. The parties went to trial. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 to PW.4 were examined. Exs.A1 to A10 and Exs.X1 to X3 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd defendant, DW.1 to DW.3 were examined. Exs.B1 to B14, and Ex.X4 were marked.

8. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by believing the opinion of DW.3/Handwriting Expert, who gave Ex.X4/report that Ex.A1/promissory note is a forged one.

9. Against the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff presented AS.No.11 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Judge, Nellore which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court, and confirmed the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.

10. In these circumstances, the present Second Appeal is presented.

11. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff Mr.Karra Srinivas, through virtual hearing. There was no representation for the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant.

12. The learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the 1st defendant for medical treatment of her husband borrowed money from the plaintiff, who is no other than her brother, but failed to repay the same in spite of repeated demands, due to that the plaintiff instituted the suit, which erroneously dismissed by the trial Court, and confirmed by the Appellate Court. He would further submit that the trial Court and the App