JUDGMENT:

The defendant in OS No.292 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kurnool is the appellant. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. Originally, the suit was instituted by the respondent against the appellant for recovery of her debt under Ex.A1/Receipt with interest, amounting to Rs.68,499/-.

2. The appellant and the respondent hereinafter referred to as defendant and plaintiff as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant, stating that in August, 2004 the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.11,000/-, in September, 2004 he had borrowed a sum of Rs.11,000/-, in October, 2004 he had borrowed a sum of Rs.11,000/-, and again on 06.11.2004, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.11,000/-, in total the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.44,000/-, and executed Ex.A1/Receipt on 06.11.2004, agreeing to repay the same with interest at

24% per annum, which he failed to repay in spite of Ex.A5/Legal notice, dated 13.02.2006. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant filed written statement, resisting the claim of the plaintiff inter-alia, stating that he received legal notice from the plaintiff on 20.09.2005, for which he issued reply, again he received another legal notice, dated 13.02.2006, for which he issued reply on 18.02.2006. The defendant submits that he never saw the plaintiff, and one of the attestors of Ex.A1 is his colleague, who borrowed money from him and his father, and issued a cheque, which was bounced and after that said case was settled in Lok Adalat in OS No.783 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kurnool. It is the contention of the defendant that DW.1 who is one of the attestors of Ex.A1/Receipt created a forged receipt and got it filed the suit through the plaintiff, though he has not executed any receipt in favour of the plaintiff by borrowing money. He prays to dismiss the suit.

5. The trial Court basing on the above pleadings, settled the following issues:

1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit claim as prayed for?

2. Whether the suit receipt is forged one or not?

3. To what relief”?

6. The parties went to trial. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined. Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 to DW.3 were examined. Exs.B1 to B13 were marked.

7. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, on the ground that the plaintiff proved execution of Ex.A1, and the defendant who pleaded forgery failed to prove the same.

8. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant presented AS.No.71 of 2009 on the file of I Additional District Court, Kurnool which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court.

9. In these circumstances, this Second Appeal is presented. 10. I have heard learned Counsel Ms.Lakshmi Priyanvitha Popuri, representing on behalf of Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondent Mr.T.Kumar Babu.

11. The learned Counsel, representing the appellant/ defendant would submit that suit is based on Ex.A1/ Unstamped Receipt, having material alterations, over writing and insertion of some portions, which failed to consider by the Courts below. She would further submit that DW.1, the colleague of the defendant against whom as money suit has been filed and cheque bounce case also filed by the defendant and his father, created Ex.A1/forged receipt with the help of the plaintiff and another attestor, and scribe, who is no other than his close relative. She argued that the plaintiff failed to prove Ex.A1/ Receipt and both Courts have not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Court and admission made by DW.3 with regard to suit transaction, is not a ground to decree the suit. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant/defen