Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless proven perverse, emphasizing the finality of first appellate court's decisions.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURESH REDDY, J.

The defendant in O.S.No.33 of 2013 on the file of the court of Additional Senior Civil Judge-FAC: Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor is the appellant in this second appeal. Originally, the respondent in this appeal has filed the above suit seeking for recovery of Rs.2,45,300/- being the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.95,300/- being interest due under a promissory note, dated05.05.2010, together with interest @ 24% per annum.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred as arrayed in the suit.

3. The contention of the plaintiff in the suit is that on 05.05.2010 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from her for his family necessities and business purpose and agreed to repay the same together with interest @ 24% P.A. and in consideration thereof, he has executed a promissory note. Later, as the defendant did not repay the amount borrowed by him, he got issued a legal notice, dated 21.11.2012, to the defendant and defendant having received the same issued a reply notice with false allegations.

4. The defendant filed his written statement denying all the material averments made in the plaint contending inter alia that during the year 2006 he borrowed an amount of Rs.19,000/- from one R.Chengalraya Naidu son of Rama Naidu resident of Chavatapalle, P.Kothakota Post, Puthalapattu Mandal, who is doing jaggery business, for the purpose of laying drip pipe line for drip irrigation and during the course of said transaction the said R.Chengalraya Naidu got the signature of the defendant in an unfilled printed promissory note. In the year 2007, the defendant supplied two cart loads of the jaggery to the said R.Chengalraya Naidu and in the year 2008 the defendant paid Rs.10,000/- and demanded the said R.Chengalraya Naidu for return of the said promissory note since consideration amount was repaid by him, but the said R.Chengalraya Naidu has been postponing on one pretext or the other to give the promissory note on the premise that it was misplaced and assured him that as soon as he traced the said promissory note, he will return it back and thereafter, some disputes arose between the defendant and R.Chengalraya Naidu. Keeping in mind the disputes, the said R.Chengalraya Naidu hatched up a plan with the plaintiff and in order to wrongfully gain from the defendant, the said blank promissory note, which was signed by the defendant, was used by the plaintiff as that of the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Trial Court basing on the above pleadings framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on defendant ?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated document for an illegal gain ?

3. Whether present suit is filed at the instigation of son-in-law of plaintiff ?

4. Whether there is a cause of action to file the suit ?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, as prayed for ?

6. “To what relief ?”

6. During trial on behalf of plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A.3. On behalf of defendants, D.W.s1 and 2 were examined. However, no documentary evidence got marked on his behalf. After completion of trial, learned Additional Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit with costs for a sum of Rs.2,45,300/- with subsequent interest @ 12% P.A. on principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% P.A. till the date of realization on the principal amount.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant/appellant filed the Appeal Suit before the learned I Additional District Judge, Chittoor vide A.S.No.40 of 2022.

8. The learned First Appellate Judge having re-appreciated the entire material evidence on record came to the conclusion that the trial Court answered all the issues in a proper perspective way and dismissed the Appeal Suit by confirming the Judgment of the trial Court.

9. Aggrie