The validity of a promissory note is upheld when supported by evidence of execution and consideration, and a second appeal requires substantial questions of law to be present.

Judgment :

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short ) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 14.03.2023 in A.S.No.58 of 2019, on the file of III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 23.09.2019 passed in O.S.No.240 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram (“trial Court” for short).

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.240 of 2012, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.240 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, with a prayer for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,52,699/- being the principal and interest due on the suit promissory note, dated 25.08.2010 executed by the defendants and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed A.S.No.58 of 2019, on the file of III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram. The learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants in the suit approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.240 of 2012, is as follows:

The 2^nd defendant is wife of 1^st defendant and they jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.08.2010 for their family expenses and for business purpose and on the even date itself, the defendants jointly executed a demand promissory note at Bhimavaram, in favour of plaintiff for the said amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with yearly compound interest at 24% per annum to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not repay any amount. Finally, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 26.07.2012 through his Advocate to the defendants demanding them to pay the entire suit promissory note debt. The 1^st defendant received the said notice on 24.08.2012 and the 2^nd defendant received the said notice on 03.08.2012, but they failed to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

7. The 2^nd defendant filed written statement before the trial Court by denying the averments made in the plaint and contended as follows:

The defendants never borrowed huge amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff. There are no financial transactions between the plaintiff and defendants at any point of time. They do not know who is the plaintiff and they never saw the plaintiff at any point of time. The plaintiff might have forged the signatures of the defendants on the alleged suit promissory note at the instance of her enemies to get unlawful gain by fabricating the suit promissory note. There is no valid consideration on the foot of the suit promissory note to the 2^nd defendant from the plaintiff and the suit promissory note is consisting of devoid of consideration. The plaintiff got issued legal notice with false and untenable allegations with a fraudulent intention. The attestors and scribe of the promissory note are no other than the henchmen of the plaintiff and the defendants never saw them at any time.

8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, framed the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the suit promissory note, dated 25.08.2010 is true, valid and supported by consideration?

(2) To what relief?

9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W