The courts affirmed the validity of a promissory note based on direct evidence, emphasizing that expert testimony is weak and should not override substantive evidence.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Appellant/Defendant against the Decree and Judgment dated 17.09.2007, in A.S. No. 82 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Judge, Nellore (for short ‘the 1st Appellate Court’) confirming the decree and Judgment dated 15.02.2006, in O.S. No. 90 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gudur (for short, ‘the trial Court’).

2. The Respondent/Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S. No. 90 of 2001 seeking recovery of Rs. 1,63,865/- being the principal and interest from the Defendant based on the promissory note, dated 05.05.1999.

3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate any potential confusion and better comprehend the case.

4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

Defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from Plaintiff on 05.05.1999 for business purposes, agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum, either to Plaintiff or to his order, upon demand. A promissory note was executed on the same date. Despite repeated demands for repayment, the Defendant failed to fulfil his obligation. Consequently, the Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 01.12.2001, which the Defendant received. In response, the Defendant sent a reply on 18.12.2001, containing false allegations.

5. In the written statement, the Defendant refuted the averments in the plaint, asserting that he never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff, let alone Rs.1,00,000/- under the promissory note dated 05.05.1999, which he described as a blatant forgery. He claimed there were disputes with the Plaintiff's father-in-law, Vadapalli Nageswara Rao, who allegedly fabricated the promissory note with the assistance of his associates. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff lacks the financial capacity to lend such a substantial sum. He emphasized that his reply presented the true facts of the matter, contending that there is no truth or bona fides in the Plaintiff’s claims, and therefore, the suit should be dismissed with costs.

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

(i) Whether the suit promissory note is a rank forgery?

(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

7. During the trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 on behalf of the Plaintiff. Conversely, on behalf of the Defendant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.X.1.

8. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs as prayed for against the Defendant with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the Defendant filed an Appeal in A.S. No. 82 of 2006 on file of the 1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding Court, framed the following points for consideration:

(i) Whether the Defendant has borrowed money and executed promissory note as claimed by the Defendant?

(ii) Whether the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable?

10. The 1st Appellate Court, after scrutinizing oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, dismissed the Appeal with costs by its Judgment and Decree, dated 17.09.2007. Assailing the same, the Defendant preferred the present Second Appeal.

11. Heard Sri. Ch. C. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel representing the Appellant/Defendant, and Sri. T.C. Krishnan learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff.

12. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant contends that the evidence of DW-2, along with the Ex.X.1 report, clearly demonstrates that Defendant did not execute the Ex.A.1 promissory note. He asserts that there is no valid basis for disregarding the expert's opinion based solely on specu