JUDGMENT :

(K. Manmadha Rao, J.)

Second Appeal No.311 of 2012 has been filed assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2011, passed in A.S.No.16 of 2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (in short "the first appellate court") in confirming the Judgment and decree dated 19.09.2009 in O.S.No.86 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki (in short "trial court)".

Second Appeal No.310 of 2012 has been filed assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2011, passed in A.S.No.15 of 2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (in short "the first appellate court") in confirming the Judgment and decree dated 19.09.2009 in O.S.No.85 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, (in short "the trial court")

2. The parties will herein after be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Suit for the sake of convenience.

3. Since the facts and issue involved in all the Second Appeals are one and the same, I find it expedient to decide these matters by a Common Judgment.

4. For the sake of convenience, S.A.No.311 of 2012 is taken as leading case.

5. The appellants herein are the defendants; 1st respondent is the plaintiff in the suit, who died and his legal representatives were added as respondents 2 to 4 as per orders dated 30.01.2020 in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in S.A.No.311 of 2012.

6. Initially the defendants in the suit borrowed amounts from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and in consideration thereof, the defendants executed demand promissory note in his favour. Inspite of repeated demands the defendants failed to discharge the same. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount due under the suit promissory notes against the defendants.

7. The defendants filed counter denying the suit transaction and contended that they did not subscribe their signatures on the suit promissory note and it is a rank forgery. The defendants never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, who has no capacity to lead such heavy amount. There are disputes between them and one Koneti Sreenivasa Rao, who is close relative of plaintiff and that they might have colluded and filed the suit for wrongful gain. Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court eventually framed the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount from the Defendants as prayed for?

(2) To what relief?

(B) The following additional Issues No.1 and 2 are framed on 21.07.2009.

(1) Whether the suit pronote dated 25.01.2003 for Rs.75,000/- is true, valid and executed by the Defendants No.1 and 2?

(2) Whether the suit pronote is brought into existence by forging the signatures of the Defendants No.1 and 2 in the circumstances as pleaded by the Defendants?

9. During the course of trial PWs-1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and Ex.A1 got marked and on behalf of the defendants, Dws-1 to 3 were examined and Ex.X1 document got marked.

10. After thorough enquiry, the trial court holding that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 are reliable than the opinion of DW-3, therefore Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid and executed by the defendants and that it is not a forged one as contended by the defendants. Accordingly the suit is decreed with costs.

11. Assailing the said Judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants therein have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2009. The first appellate court has framed the following points for consideration in the Appeal:

i) Whether the suit pronote is created by forging the signatures of the defendants No.1 and 2 in the circumstances pleaded by the defendants?

ii) Whether the Trail Court rightly observed that the evidence of the Expert DW-3 is insufficient to hold that the suit pronote is forged one?

iii) Whether the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dt. 19.09.2009 is liable to be set aside?

12. The First Appellate Court after considering the facts and circ