HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT

The present Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 04.04.2025, passed by the Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda in AS.No.247 of 2018, whereunder and whereby the Judgment and decree dated 24.09.2018 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in O.S.No.962 of 2014, was confirmed.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The factual matrix of the case in nut-shell, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal, is that the plaintiff and defendant are close relatives; that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs on 01.01.2012 from the plaintiff to meet her personal necessities and executed a demand promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest @ 1.5% per month; that since the defendant defaulted in payment, the plaintiff got issued Legal Notice dated 12.06.2014; however, the defendant even after receipt of notice did not repay the amount, but, executed an undertaking dated 05.02.2014 admitting the liability and agreed to repay the amount in two installments along with interest within short period; that, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 16.08.2014, but failed to pay the balance amount. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.4,36,500/-.

4. The defendant filed written statement and denied that she approached the plaintiff on 01.01.2012 and borrowed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs under Demand Promissory Note; that the demand promissory note is created and brought into existence only to cause wrongful loss to the defendant and that the attesters of the demand promissory note are yesmen of plaintiff; that the legal notice dated 12.06.2014 is baseless and that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount to the defendant; that the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff; that she never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, and as such the question of undertaking dated

05.07.2014 does not arise. Thus, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial:

“1. Whether promissory note dated 01.01.2012 and undertaking dated 05.07.2014 are true, valid and binding on defendant.

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount.

3. To what relief?”

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, however, and no documents were marked.

7. The trial Court, on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, decreed the suit for Rs.4,36,500/- along with costs and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization over the principal amount of Rs.3 lakhs.

8. The trial Court while decreeing the suit made the following observations:-

“….The undisputed oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 and A5 prima facie establishing that defendant herself executed Ex.A1-pronote and Ex.A5-undertaking. Further, on perusal of the way, the executants signed on Exs.A1 and A5 and admitted signatures, same shows the similarity and there is no discrepancy and in fact, they are written freely. At present, there is no material on record to disprove Exs.A1 and A5. Moreover, in the present case, plaintiff issued notice under Ex.A2 and defendant received the said notice under Ex.A4- acknowledgment. Though got admission through PW.1 that defendant issued reply, copy of such reply was not filed by both the parties. Since defendant disputing the execution of Ex.A1 and A5, it is for the defendant to file the reply and on what ground she disputed the Exs.A1 to A5. In the absence of such reply, this Court is unable to conclude that defendant denied the claim of plaintif