JUDGMENT :

The defendant in suit O.S. No.53 of 2015 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Udayagiri, filed the above Second Appeal.

2. Parties to the judgment are referred as they were arrayed in O.S. No.53 of 2015.

3. Plaintiff filed O.S. No.53 of 2015 against the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,58,900/-, principle amount being Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 24.04.2013 and executed promissory note on the same day. Defendant also agreed to pay interest at 24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands, defendant failed to repay the amount and hence the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 16.07.2015 and filed the suit.

4. Defendant filed the written statement and contended inter alia, that plaintiff is the cousin of one Jayarami Reddy.

Defendant paid an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- towards advance of land purchased by him under the agreement of sale dated 11.02.2012 for an extent of Ac.108.67 cents at Bandaganipalli Village. Since, the said Jayarami Reddy has no title, he demanded to return the advance amount of

Rs.10,00,000/-. However, the said Jayarami Reddy failed to repay the amount to the defendant. Plaintiff came to the House of defendant on 15.04.2013 and in the absence requested the wife of the defendant to return the agreement of sale dated 11.02.2012. Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the wife of the defendant for returning the agreement of sale and gave a receipt to his wife in token of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. He also promised to pay the balance of Rs.8,00,000/- after receiving the same from Jayarami Reddy. The defendant denied the execution of promissory note and passage of consideration and prayed the Court to dismiss the Suit.

5. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: a) Whether the promissory note dated 24.04.2013 is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

b) Whether the suit promissory note is forged one?

C) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount?

d) To what relief?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. Attestors of the promissory note-Ex.A.1 were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, he examined himself as D.W.1. He also examined D.W.2. Ex.B.1 was marked.

7. The Trial Court on consideration of both oral and document evidence, came to the conclusion that Ex.1- promissory note is genuine document and consideration was passed under Ex.A.1. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent and nothing contra was elicited during the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3. During the cross examination of D.W.1, it was elicited with regard to plaintiffs issuance of legal notice.

8. Eventually, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff established the execution of promissory note and passing of the consideration. The trial Court considered the interest and came to the conclusion that defendant is liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from institution of suit till the decree and thereafter at 6% per annum. Eventually, trial Court decreed the suit by

judgment

and decree dated

21.09.2016.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed appeal A.S. No.16 of 2019 on the file of leaned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. The lower Appellate Court being the final fact finding Court framed the following points for consideration: a) Whether the execution of the suit promissory note has been proved by the respondent by adducing reliable evidence?

b) Whether the appellant has succeeded in proving that the suit promissory note is a forged document?

c) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court suffer from any illegality or perversity and is liable to be set aside?