IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof regarding the authenticity of a promissory note lies with the party alleging forgery, and the evidence must be evaluated on the preponderance of probabilities.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/defendants challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 28.01.2008, in O.S. No.262 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The first Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit.

Sole respondent/ plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal, his legal representatives are brought on record as respondent Nos.2 to 7.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,32,394/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 05.05.1996executed by the second defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,50,000/- 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.262 of 2002, are as under:

The first defendant is a firm doing business in boiled rice mill situated at Guntur Road, Ongole, second defendant is the managing partner of the first defendant. The second defendant, being the managing partner of the first defendant, borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.05.1996for business purpose and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. On demand, the second defendant as a managing partner of the first defendant firm paid an amount of Rs.100/- on 04.05.1999 and endorsed the same on the back of promissory note with his own hand writing. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants are diverting the funds for other purposes and thus avoiding to pay the amount to the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, defendants did not choose to pay any amount and have been postponing the same on one pretext or other. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

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

The wife of second defendant i.e., Kusuma Kumari having 3 elder brothers and 1 elder sister and all of them constituted a Hindu joint family, the plaintiff is a junior paternal uncle of the said Kusuma Kumari. The wife of second defendant along with her sister filed a suit for partition. Her brothers and the plaintiff forced her and the second defendant to withdraw the suit, but they refused to do so, as such they developed grudge and fabricated a pronote and filed this false case with a view to bound the second defendant and his wife towards them.

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

(i) Whether the second defendant borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- and executed suit promissory note on 05.05.1996?

(ii) Whether the payments shown in the promissory note are made by the second defendant and whether the suit claim is in time?

(iii) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X7 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 to DW3 were examined and Ex.C1 was marked.

8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 28.01.2008, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.

9. Heard Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for appellants/defendants and Ms. Gnanusha, learned counsel, on behalf of Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the suit pronote is created on account of the disputes between the wife of second defendant and plaintiff, who is none other than her junior paternal uncle. He would further contend that the Court below erred that the suit Ex.A1 pronote is