Once a plaintiff proves the execution of a promissory note through the testimony of the scribe and attesting witnesses, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the plea of forgery; failure to lead evidence to rebut this effectively confirms the validity of the instrument.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Money suit - Recovery based on promissory note - Burden of proof for establishing execution of instrument and forgery - Court holding that initial burden lies on plaintiff to prove execution, which shifts to defendant upon prima facie proof - Defendant failed to discharge onus of proving forgery.

(B) Evidence Act - Reliability of witnesses - Minor discrepancies in oral evidence of witnesses to an execution of a document do not lead to the invalidation of the entire testimony if the core factum of the execution is established by the scribe and attesting witnesses.

Facts of the case:
The appellant-defendant challenged a decree for recovery of Rs.10,11,750/- based on a promissory note (Ex.A1) dated 11.09.2012. The defendant contended that the instrument was forged and fabricated, claiming they resided elsewhere during the transaction and that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to lend such an amount. The plaintiff asserted execution through the testimony of the scribe and four attesting witnesses (PWs 2-5).

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the plaintiff adequately proved the transaction by examining the scribe and attesting witnesses. Minor discrepancies in the testimonies of these witnesses were deemed insufficient to discard the evidence. The court concluded the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of execution, especially since no evidence (such as expert opinion) was adduced to support the allegation of forgery.

Issues: Whether the promissory note is valid and binding on the defendant, and whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit despite the defendant's plea of forgery/fabrication.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the plaintiff discharges the initial burden of proving the execution of the instrument through the testimony of witnesses and the scribe, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the plea of forgery. Failure to lead cogent evidence in support of such a plea results in the decree being upheld.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature of the suit and initial claims presented by the plaintiff regarding a money loan transaction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. procedural history, framing of issues, and the trial court's decision. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. summary of rival contentions raised by the appellant and the respondent during the appeal. (Para 13)
4. evaluation of evidence, burden of proof regarding forgery, and final appellate conclusion. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 assailing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.06 of 2013, dated 03.10.2018 by the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

2. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of money for Rs.9,84,200/- in his favour against the appellant-defendant person and property and to award interest @ 18% per annum on Rs.9,84,200/- from the date of suit till the realization.

3. The parties will be hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant

AVERMENTS IN PLAINT:

4. The defendant is having close acquaintance with the plaintiff and approached him on 09.11.2012, borrowed an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- for his business purpose. The plaintiff is doing Adthi business and the defendant is a resident of Jammikunta Village, runs Private Chits. The defendant having received the above said amount has executed promissory note as a collateral security in favour of the plaintiff on 09.11.2012 undertaking to repay the same with interest @ of Rs.1.50 ps. per hundred i.e., 18% per annum. Promissory note is scribed by A.Shankaraiah (PW.3), P.Kaladhar Rao (PW.4), K.Thirupathi (PW.2) and A.Bhadraiah (PW.5) stood as witnesses and the transaction took place in the house of the plaintiff. The defendant did not repay the amount in spite of the request made by the plaintiff. Plaintiff came to know that the defendant is making efforts to alienate the house property in order to evade the payment, in view of the urgency could not issue the legal notice and directly filed the suit. The defendant is liable to pay the suit amounts due under the pro-note as follows:

a)	Prl. amount under pronote dated: 09.11.2012	Rs.9,50,000-00
b)	Interest Rs. 1.50 ps per month per hundred i.e., 18% per annum from 09.11.2012 to 21.01.2013 i.e., 2 months 12 days.	Rs.34,200-00
		Rs.9,84,200-00

and prayed to decree the suit.

WRITTEN STATEMENT:

5. Defendant denied the execution of promissory note dated 09.11.2012 and further contended that the signatures on the promissory note and receipt are forged and fabricated, they do not belong to him and the defendant being literate if he has really taken the amount he would have scribe the promissory note and the receipt but the plaintiff in collusion with his friends has filled up the columns in the printed proforma of the promissory note and receipt. Plaintiff has no license to lend the money and has no financial capacity, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. The trial Court framed the following Issues:

1. Whether the suit pro-note is truly valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

7. Plaintiff has amended the plaint and as per the orders in I.A.No.109 of 2015, dated 04.11.2015. As per the amended plaint the date of suit promissory note is 11.09.2012 and the claim is to pass a decree for Rs.10,11,750/- with interest @ 18% per annum on the above said amount and the calculation made by the plaintiff is as under:

a)	Prl. amount under pronote dated: 11.09.2012	Rs.9,50,000-00
b)	Interest @ Rs. 1.50 ps per month per hundred i.e., 18% per annum from 11.09.2012 to 21.01.2013 i.e., 4 months 10 days.	Rs.61,750-00
		Rs.10,11,750-00

8. Defendant has not filed additional written statement to the amended plaint.

9. The learned Trial Court has recasted the issues as under:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

10. Plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and also ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 40943

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADB.R.Madhusudhan Rao, JRavikanti Srikanth – AppellantVersusLingampally Linga Rao – RespondentA.S.NO.292 OF 2019

Once a plaintiff proves the execution of a promissory note through the testimony of the scribe and attesting witnesses, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the plea of forgery; failure to lead evidence to rebut this effectively confirms the validity of the instrument.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J
Ravikanti Srikanth – Appellant
Versus
Lingampally Linga Rao – Respondent
A.S.NO.292 OF 2019