JUDGMENT:

1. Defendant in the suit preferred this appeal under section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC impugning the judgment dated 21.06.2010 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka in O.S.No.257 of 2008. Respondent herein was the plaintiff in the suit.

2. Sri K. Sai Rama Murthy, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri P. Raj Kumar, the learned counsel for respondent submitted arguments.

3. The following points are required to be noticed: -

The controversy between the parties concerns a promissory note dated 20.01.2006. Plaintiff claims to be the creditor and alleges that the defendant borrowed money from him and executed the suit promissory note. Parties to the dispute are well known to each other. They lived in the opposite houses in Ukkunagaram of Visakhapatnam. To the disputed promissory note, there are two attestors. Both attestors and the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant are all colleagues in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. Though defendant is essentially a house maker, she also works as an agent in Sahara India and she studied up to 5th class.

4. Plaintiff laid the suit alleging that defendant borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from him to meet her family expenses and executed promissory note/ Ex.A1 and despite demands failed to repay the same along with 24% interest per annum that was agreed upon between the parties. According to him, she owed him Rs. 9,99,600/- and seeking its recovery along with interest and costs, he laid the suit.

5. Defendant in her written statement denied borrowal of money and denied execution of the promissory note. As the promissory note contained thumb impression and signature attributed to her, she had stated in her written statement that the signature is a forged one and the thumb impression was never affixed by her on this promissory note and on earlier occasion, the plaintiff with reference to certain LIC policies obtained her thumb impression on certain papers and by manipulation, he got the suit pro-note created and sought dismissal of the suit. On the rival pleadings, the learned trial court settled the following issues for consideration: -

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 20.01.2006 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. To what relief?

6. At the trial, plaintiff testified as PW.1 and one of the attestors to the pro-note deposed as PW.2. The disputed pro- note was exhibited as Ex.A1. As against that defendant testified as DW.1 and got examined the scribe of the pro-note as DW.2. She also produced Exs.B1 to B3, medical and disability certificates with a view to show her signatures.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the contentions raised on both sides, learned trial court agreed with the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit in his favour. Aggrieved by that the present appeal is preferred by the defendant.

8. Various contentions are raised in the grounds of appeal and the learned counsel for appellant argued them praying for setting aside of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for respondent/ plaintiff argued that evidence on record established the case of the respondent/ plaintiff and learned trial court reached to appropriate conclusions and the impugned judgment does not require interference and sought dismissal of the appeal.

9. The following points fall for consideration: -

1. Whether Ex.A1 promissory note bears the signature and thumb impression of appellant/ defendant or not?

2. Whether learned trial court failed to appreciate evidence and reached to wrong conclusions requiring any interference? POINTS. 1 and 2: -

The disputed promissory note is marked as Ex.A1. In support of it, plaintiff as PW.1 stated that at his house at about 6.00 pm in the evening, defendant borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from him and executed this pro-note. Defendant as DW.1 stated in her evidence that she neither borrowed money nor executed this promissory note. Thus, it was the burden on the plaintiff to prove what he alleged. At more than one place, lea