JUDGMENT: -

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/defendants challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 07.07.2008, in O.S. No.455 of 2005 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,03,875/- being the principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 15.12.2003 and 15.04.2004 executed by one Atluri Venkateswara Rao in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,50,000/- each and for costs.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.455 of2005, are as under:

One Atluri Venkateswara Rao, who is the husband of first defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.12.2003 for his business purpose and for discharging his sundry debts and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. Again the said Atluri Venkateswara Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.04.2004 for his business purpose and family expenses and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. But inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the said Atluri Venkateswara Rao did not choose to pay any amount and died intestate, leaving behind his wife and children, who are the defendants 1 to 3 respectively. Subsequent to the death of Atluri Venkateswara Rao, the plaintiff requested the defendants for several times to discharge the debts due under the pronotes from the estates of Atluri Venkateswara Rao, which on his death devolved upon the defendants, but the defendants postponing the matter of discharging the debt and trying to dispose of the properties of late Atluri Venkateswara Rao to evade the debts due to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

The first defendant does not know who the plaintiff is, even Atluri Venkateswara Rao may not know the plaintiff, since the family of Venkateswara Rao know all his friends and well-wishers. Atluri Venkateswara Rao is the Managing Partner of City Cable in Kakinada, if he happend to borrow any amount, he would have borrowed the amounts in the capacity of managing partner of city cable and he never borrowed amounts personally and the suit pronotes are forged and fabricated documents since the first defendant and her husband Atluri Venkateswara Rao left Kakinada on 13.04.2004 to Tirupati by Seshadri Express train No.7101 from Kakinada town to Tirupati, along with them one City Cable Operator also accompanied to Tirupati to have Darsan of Lord Venkateswara Swamy, and they returned to Kakinada on

16.04.2004 and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

6. The defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte in the trial Court itself.

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

(i) Whether the suit pronote dated 15.12.2003 is a forged and fabricated one?

(ii) Whether the suit pronote dated 15.04.2004 is a forged and fabricated one?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim?

(iv) Whether the defendant travelled with one Atluri Venkateswara Rao from Tirupati to Samalkot on 16.04.2004 bearing PNR No.1324140936 in S5 Coach and was not present on 15.04.2004 in Kakinada?

(v) To what relief?

8. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

9. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of