IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of promissory notes, emphasizing the defendant's failure to prove forgery or lack of capacity to lend, thus confirming the trial court's judgment.

JUDGMENT :

V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

1. 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 03.01.2001, in O.S. No. 39 of 1999 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool [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.2,30,762/- being the principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 10.05.1998 and 23.05.1998 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.96,000/- and Rs.94,000/- respectively 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. 39 of 1999, are as under:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.96,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.05.1998 for her legal necessities and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Again the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.94,000/- from the plaintiff on 23.05.1998 for her legal necessities 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 several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay any amount. Hence, Plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendant demanding her to pay the amount covered under two pronotes, but the defendant neither paid the amount nor gave any reply to the notice issued by the plaintiff. 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:

The defendant name is Sarojamma, but not Saroja as described in the plaint. The plaintiff is a close friend of one A.Manikya Rao. The defendant's daughter was given in marriage to the son of Manikya Rao. The marriage was performed in the year 1998, even prior to 1998 Manikya Rao is known to the family of defendant. After the marriage of defendant's daughter with the son of Manikya Rao, disputes arose between the two families and the said Manikya Rao in collusion with the plaintiff, has created these two pronotes by forging the signatures of the defendant in the pronotes. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend any amount much less suit amount. 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 is true and genuine?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount as prayed for?

(iv) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X6 were marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were 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 03.01.2001, 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 Smt. Kopparthi Sumathi, learned counsel for appellant. None appeared for the respondent.

10. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the plaintiff is not having sufficient capacity to pay the pronotes amount to the appellant and the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes are fabricated documents, the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper manner and came to wrong conclusion and decreed the suit and she further contend that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge.

11. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit,