Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : T Lakshmi Narayana
For the Respondent: G L Nageswar Rao

Case Summary

• Parties: Shaik Khadar Vali (Appellant/Plaintiff) vs. Shaik Maqbul and Others (Respondents/Defendants, legal heirs of deceased Shaik Abdul Rahiman). [1][2][3][4][7]
• Procedural History: Second Appeal No. 532/2009 under Section 100 CPC against reversal by 1st Appellate Court (A.S. No. 302/2008, dt. 07.04.2009) of trial court decree (O.S. No. 735/2005, dt. 22.09.2008) in favor of Plaintiff. [1][8][9][10][33]
• Suit Claim: Recovery of Rs. 3,98,800/- (principal Rs. 3,00,000/- + interest at 24% p.a.) from Defendants as legal heirs of deceased executant of promissory note (Ex. A1) dated 08.08.2004, executed for family necessities. [2][4][7][20]
• Defendants' Defense: Denied execution, consideration, and Plaintiff's capacity to lend; alleged fabrication due to prior dispute involving Plaintiff's father and V. Venkateswarlu; claimed no need for loan as deceased earned Rs. 5,300/- monthly salary. [5][26]
• Trial Court Issues: (i) Entitlement to suit amount; (ii) Validity of promissory note on deceased's estate; (iii) Jurisdiction; (iv) Relief. [6]
• Evidence - Plaintiff: PW1 (Plaintiff), PW2 (scribe), PW4 (attestor) confirmed execution of Ex. A1 in Guntur at Plaintiff's house; PW1 detailed source of funds (Saudi work, father-in-law's land sale). Ex. A1 marked. [7][20][21][24]
• Evidence - Defendants: DW1 (1st Defendant) examined; no documents; admitted lack of knowledge on Plaintiff's residence, work, financial capacity, PW2; did not deny husband's signature on Ex. A1 or dispute Guntur transaction. [7][21][24][25][27]
• Trial Court Decree: Allowed suit for Rs. 3,98,800/- with interest (12% till decree, 6% thereafter) against deceased's estate in Defendants' hands. [8]
• 1st Appellate Court: Reversed trial decree, finding evidence insufficient for Plaintiff's entitlement. [9][10]
• Substantial Questions of Law: (i) Relevance of creditor's residence absent evidence; (ii) Maintainability of suit on promissory note at execution place. [14] (!) (!)

Jurisdiction

• Suit on promissory note maintainable where cause of action arose (Guntur, site of execution) or Defendants reside (Donakonda); Guntur court had jurisdiction despite parties' native place. [22][23][24][28]

Scope of Second Appeal (Section 100 CPC)

• Interference justified only on substantial question of law; permissible if 1st appellate findings perverse, ignore relevant evidence, rely on irrelevant material, or defy logic; Section 103 CPC allows fact determination if evidence sufficient and lower findings vitiated. [15][16][17][18] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Merits and Presumption (Section 118 NI Act)

• Presumption favors holder of promissory note as genuine and supported by consideration; mere denial insufficient; burden on Defendants to rebut by preponderance of probabilities via direct evidence or circumstances. [12][29][30]
• Defendants failed to rebut presumption: no evidence of fabrication, incapacity to lend, or non-receipt of consideration; DW1's testimony inconsistent with pleadings, admitted ignorance; no expert opinion on document, no challenge to signature or witnesses' credibility. [5][12][21][24][25][26][27][29][30]
• Consistent, unrebutted evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 establishes execution, consideration, and Guntur transaction; no motive for false testimony. [20][24][27][29]

Outcome

• 1st Appellate judgment perverse, based on surmises; trial court findings restored; Second Appeal allowed, suit decreed. [31][32][33]