The burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff to establish the execution and validity of the promissory note, and the Court can compare signatures to determine authenticity.

JUDGMENT :

(T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Respondent/ Defendant against the Decree and Judgment dated 25.11.2002, in A.S.No.50 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty (for short, ‘the First Appellate Court’) reversing the decree and Judgment dated 02.11.2000, in O.S.No.40 of 1999 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).

2. The Respondent/Appellant is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.40 of 1999 seeking recovery of Rs.33,690/-, the principal and interest, from the Defendant based on the promissory note dated 25.04.1996.

3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate 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:

On 25.04.1996, Defendant borrowed Rs.20,000/- in cash from Plaintiff for personal necessity and executed a promissory note in favour of Plaintiff on the same day, agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum. Despite several demands for repayment and a registered notice issued to the Defendant, the Defendant has failed to repay any amount due under the promissory note.

5. In the written statement, the Defendant denied borrowing any money, let alone the sum of Rs.20,000/- from the Plaintiff. Defendant asserts no prior relationship with Plaintiff, who was unknown to him until he received the summons and learned she is the daughter of the late J. Subbaiah Setty, a money lender. The Defendant claims that J. Subbaiah Setty and his sons lent money at exorbitant interest rates, particularly to Railway employees. The Plaintiff's brother, who continued this business after J. Subbaiah Setty's death, allegedly held a grudge against the Defendant due to his role as a Railway Union leader advocating for the welfare of employees. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff fabricated the suit promissory note, with forged signatures, in collaboration with the attestors and scribe, to bid for wrongful gain. Therefore, the Defendant seeks the dismissal of the suit, asserting the signature on the promissory note is a forgery.

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

i. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the Defendant?

Ii. Whether the suit pronote is forged one?

iii. To what relief?

7. During the trial, P.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 on behalf of the Plaintiff. Conversely, on behalf of the Defendant, DW.1 was examined, and no documents were marked.

8. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the Trial Court dismissed the suit without costs.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff filed an Appeal in A.S.No.50 of 2000 on file of the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding Court, framed the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree for the suit amount as prayed for?

2. Whether the suit pronote is forged, thereby the signature found in it is not the signature of the Defendant?

3. Whether the father of the Plaintiff and her brother are money lenders who advance amounts to railway employees at an exorbitant rate of interest at Rs.6/- per hundred per month?

4. Whether the Defendant has not executed and received the consideration?

5. To what relief?

10. The First Appellate Court, after scrutinizing oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, allowed the Appeal by its Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2002. Assailing the same, the Defendant preferred the present Second Appeal.

11. Heard Sri. O. Manohar Reddy learned Counsel representing the Appellant / Defendant and Sri. N. Ranga Reddy, learned Counsel for the Respondent / Plaintiff.

12. Based on the Appellant’s contentions, the following substantial questions of law are involved in this Second Appeal:

i. In the absence of proving t