In a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note, once the plaintiff discharges the initial burden of proving execution by examining the scribe and attesting witnesses, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the allegation of forgery, failing which the court may decree the suit.

JUDGMENT:

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:

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:

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 an