JUDGMENT:

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C’) is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the decree and Judgment dated 21.04.2014 in O.S.No.58 of 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short, 'the trial court'). Respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.58 of 2010 seeking recovery of Rs.14,20,000/- with interest and costs from the defendant based on the promissory note.

2. Referring to the parties hereinafter as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate potential confusion and better comprehend the case. 3. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

The defendant borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his business purpose, agreeing to repay the same with the interest rate of 24% p.a., and executed a promissory note on the same day at Cheepurupalli village. The plaintiff orally demanded the defendant to repay the due amount covered under the suit promissory note, but the defendant did not refund the promissory note amount owed.

4. (a) In the written statement, the defendant refuted all the plaint averments and contended that he neither borrowed the alleged amount nor signed the alleged suit promissory note; the suit promissory note was fabricated by the plaintiff with the help of his henchman at the instance of his brother Sathyam Naidu; the signature on the alleged promissory note was a clear forgery; he had no necessity to borrow any amounts as alleged in the plaint; the plaintiff cannot advance such huge amounts.

(b) The defendant further contended that he is an agriculturist, having some mango tope lands and serves as secretary for A.I.T.U.C; his wife owns lands in Sathivada village of Therlam Mandal; his wife had obtained permission from the Government for stone quarrying (metal) on 21.08.2008 for her land; upon learning this, the plaintiff’s brother (Majji Sathyam Naidu), approached the plaintiff and convinced him to enter into a joint venture for the quarrying business; trusting his words, the defendant handed over the entire operation to him; Sathyam Naidu managed the quarry for some time, but later continued it, due to disputes with neighbouring land owners; all records related to the quarry and the materials sold were in Sathyam Naidu’s possession; Sathyam Naidu proposed that they invest in a stone crusher adjacent to the earlier stone quarry of one S.Thirumala Rao, who happened to be the leaseholder of the sand quarry of Maruvada, the defendant agreed for the same and allowed to him to use the said compressor, tractor and trailer for it; meanwhile, the plaintiff’s brother and his coterry impressed the defendant that they will install stone crusher in the defendant’s lands at Amiti village adjacent to the stone quarry stands in the defendant’s wife’s name, for which the defendant agreed to give all the amounts of the stone quarry share in the above said sand quarry; though the plaintiff's brother decided to pay all the amounts, he failed to deliver even single pie to the defendant, as such, the defendant insisted him to settle all his account and handed over the above machinery, tractor and trailer to him; thereby, he made false allegations and complained at International Human Rights Association, Visakhapatnam against the defendant’s wife.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

(2) Whether the suit promissory note is a rank forgery, thereby, the plaintiff is liable for prosecution.

(3) To what relief?

6. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.5 documents.

7. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decre