A plaintiff in a promissory note case bears the burden of proof for execution, while the defendant alleging forgery must provide adequate evidence to rebut the presumption of validity.

JUDGMENT :

Renuka Yara, J.

Heard Sri D. Shaila, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. The second appeal is preferred by the appellant/ appellant/defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge at Sathupally in A.S.No.6 of 2023, dated 02.05.2025 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Sathupally in O.S.No.136 of 2012, dated 23.09.2022, wherein the suit filed for recovery of amount of Rs.9,96,200/- with interest has been decreed in favour of the respondent/respondent/plaintiff for Rs.9,96,200/- with costs and interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referred before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the dispute between the parties are that the plaintiff and defendant were acquainted with one another. Out of said acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 29.12.2009 to meet his family and business necessities. After receiving the amount, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the borrowed amount with interest at 24% per annum. The transaction took place in the presence of Y. Venkateswara Rao and Y. Satish Kumar who are attestors of the promissory note and Y. Ramesh Babu scribed the promissory note. Thereafter, when there is failure on the part of the defendant to pay the suit amount, the suit for recovery was filed.

5. The defendant opposed the suit claim alleging that the promissory note which forms basis for suit for recovery is a forged and fabricated document. The defendant claimed to be doing business in the name and style of Sri Srinivasa Fertilizers at Janakipuram Village of Bonaka Mandal which is situated near the house of the plaintiff. There is acquaintance between the parties as well as the family members. Intentionally, legal notice dated 21.10.2011 was sent to the defendant’s native village at Mittagudem and it was served on a relative of defendant and suitable reply was given. It is the case of defendant that the alleged promissory note was scribed by the plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff’s brother stood as first attestor and his friend N. Sridhar stood as second attestor. Reply notice was issued but false suit is filed. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is an unemployee with no income and therefore, had no financial capacity to lend the suit amount. It is pleaded that the suit is filed with malafide intention of the plaintiff and his family members and therefore, sought its dismissal.

6. The plaintiff got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. The defendant got examined himself as DW1 and handwriting expert as CW1 and got marked Ex.C1/Expert opinion report. Upon examining the case of both the parties, the Trial Court decreed the suit and aggrieved by the same, the First Appeal has been preferred in A.S.No.6 of 2023. Said appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court leading to filing of the present Second Appeal.

7. In Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law are proposed for consideration:

a. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration that the Ex.A1 promissory note is a forged and fabricated one, burden of proof lies on the defendant as held by the First Appellate Court and the said findings is contrary to the well-established principles of law that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions ?

b. Whether the promissory note scribed and witnessed by t