The validity of a promissory note is established by the plaintiff's evidence of execution and consideration, while the defendant must prove claims of forgery or lack of consideration.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 29-9-2021 in A.S.No.8 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 12-9-2014 in O.S.No.100 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.100 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.100 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, with a prayer for recovery of Rs.3,86,800/- being the principal and interest at the rate of 12% per annum due on a pronote dated 02-7-2003 for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, decreed the suit for Rs.3,86,800/- with costs with future interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on Rs.3,00,000/-. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned VI Additional District Judge, Sompeda, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant 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.100 of 2005, is as follows:

It is pleaded that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20-7-2003 as he was in need of money, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on demand either to the plaintiff or to her order and after receipt of cash consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-, the defendant executed a promissory note dated 20-7-2003 in favour of the plaintiff with all the above terms. It is further pleaded that subsequently, the plaintiff demanded the defendant and also through elders and finally got issued a legal notice dated 30-9-2005 calling upon the defendant to pay the amount due under the promissory note together with interest accrued thereon. The defendant received the registered notice but did not pay any amount and on the other hand, he sent a reply with all false and untenable allegations. Hence, the suit is filed.

7. The defendant filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments and further contended as follows:

It is contended that he once borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from one Madina Amareswari, plaintiff’s daughter, about five years back and on her advice, the pronote was executed by him in the name of her relative. Later, he repaid the entire amount due under the said pronote to the said Amareswari in or around the year 2002, but the said Amareswari failed to return the pronote to him stating that it is mislaid. Out of good faith, he did not insist for the return of the same. It is further contended that later, the said Amareswari demanded him to pay another sum of Rs.30,000/- on the plea that he has to pay enhanced rate of interest than agreed under the pronote. In that connection, disputes arose between him and the said Amareswari. He never anticipated that the said Amareswari would create a pronote and get filed a suit through her mother. The suit pronote is a rank forgery. He never borrowed any money from the plaintiff at any time, much less on 20-7-2003 and at Balliputtuga and never executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The suit pronote is fabricated by the said Amareswari with the active connivance of the plaintiff and her men by forging his signature on the suit pronote. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit