JUDGMENT:

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the decree and Judgment dated 04.06.2012 in O.S.No.3 of 2009 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool (for short, 'the trial Court'). The Appellant is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2009 seeking recovery of Rs.11,30,000/- towards principal and Rs.8,13,600/- towards interest, totalling Rs.19,43,600/- from the Defendant with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The Respondent is the Defendant in the said suit.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the present Appeal, in a nutshell, are as under:

Defendant is indebted to Plaintiff and executed a promissory note on 01.01.2006 for Rs.11,30,000/-, agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest @ 24% per annum. Still, Defendant, despite several demands made by Plaintiff, did not repay the suit promissory note. Ultimately, the Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 22.12.2008, but the Defendant did not make any payment. The Defendant is neither an agriculturist nor a small farmer. Hence, he is not entitled to the Agricultural Debt Relief Act benefits.

4. (a) In the written statement, Defendant denied the claims made in the plaint. The Defendant asserted that on 01.12.2000, he borrowed Rs.1,30,000/- from Plaintiff, repaid it within six months, and executed the promissory note in question. The Defendant emphasized the close familial relationship, as the Plaintiff's wife was the Defendant's sister. Due to this closeness, the Defendant didn't press for the return of the promissory note. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff altered the note, changing the amount and date before filing the suit. Additionally, the witnesses listed in the suit promissory note were not present during the original execution but signed later as friends of the Plaintiff.

(b) The Defendant asserts that significant disputes arose between the parties after the death of the Plaintiff's wife, particularly concerning rival claims over the factory premises. Subsequently, several cases were filed post-2003. The Plaintiff filed O.S.No.27 of 2003 and O.S.No.14 of 2005 against the Defendant, claiming amounts based on promissory notes. The Defendant contested these suits, asserting that the notes were executed to recognize Plaintiff's share in a Board Factory (S.V.Foods) run by Defendant. Both suits were dismissed on 04.04.2006. The Defendant highlighted the enmity between them since filing these suits, making it implausible for Defendant to borrow under the alleged promissory note. The Defendant questioned Plaintiff's capacity to lend Rs.11,30,000/-, disputed the authenticity of the signature on the postal acknowledgement, and claimed non-receipt of the alleged demand notice, suggesting that Plaintiff manipulated the acknowledgement with Defendant's address.

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

(1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 01.01.2006 is true, valid and binding on the Defendant?

(2) Whether Defendant paid an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to Plaintiff in respect of the promissory note dated 01.01.2006?

(3) Whether the Defendant discharged the amount covered under the promissory note dated 01.01.2006?

(4) Whether there is any material alteration in the promissory note dated 01.01.2006?

(5) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.11,30,000/- from the Defendant with future interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization?

(6) To what relief?

The trial court, subsequently, as per the orders dated

20.09.2011 passed in I.A. No.1518 of 2011, issues No.2 and 3 were re-casted as follows:

(2) Whether the defendant paid Rs.1,30,000/- to the plaintiff in respect of promissory note dated 01.01.2000?

(3) Whether the Defendant discharged the amount covered under the promissory note dated 01.01.2000?

6. During the trial, on