Judgment reserved on 22-042-022062:A6P HC:18551 Judgment pronounced on 28-04-2026 Judgment uploaded on 28-04-2026 APHC010524072022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3397]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 437/2022 Between:

Velagala Venkata Reddy ...APPELLANT AND Jatavallavbhula Hari Jagannadh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:

1. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent:

1. N SIVA REDDY The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 25-02-2022 in A.S.No. 152 of 2018 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – cum – X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram (for short, 'the appellate Court'), confirming the decree and judgment dated 06-04-2018 in O.S.No. 691 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No. 691 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No. 691 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court for recovery of money from the defendant on the foot of a promissory note dated 27-04-2009.

4. The trial Court, after conclusion of trial, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed appeal in A.S.No. 152 of 2018 on the file of the appellate Court. The appellate Court dismissed the first appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No. 691 of 2011, is as follows:

The defendant along with his mother late Jatavallabhula Subhadra jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 27-04-2009 at Rajamahendravaram for the purpose of their family expenses and discharge of sundry debts. The defendant and his mother jointly executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date agreeing to repay the said sum together with interest @ 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant and his mother did not choose to discharge the said debt and simply postponed the same on one pretext or the other by giving most evasive replies. The plaintiff came to know that the mother of the defendant passed away in July, 2010, leaving behind the defendant as her legal-heir. The father of the defendant predeceased his mother. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

7. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

The defendant and his mother have no acquaintance with the plaintiff and they never borrowed any amount from him. The suit promissory note is fabricated by forging their signatures. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend such a huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and he is set up by one Madireddy Veerraju of Madiki who suffered an order of eviction at the hands of the defendant and his mother in A.T.C.No. 1 of 2005 on the file of learned Tenancy Tribunal at Alamur of East Godavari District. The mother of the defendant in or about the year 2000 used to write letters to the said Veerraju regarding her house and land at Madiki and about the rents payable by him to her. Taking advantage of the availability of those signatures of the defendant and his mother, the said Veerraju brought the suit promissory note into existence in the name of