HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 07.02.2025, passed by the learned I Addl. District Judge, Jagtial, in A.S.No.3 of 2023, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 06.09.2018, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, in O.S.No.105 of 2012 was confirmed.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit against defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- basing on the promissory note dated 05.12.2009. It is averred that though the defendant agreed to repay the amount along with interest @ 24% per annum, he failed to repay the same despite several demands, hence, suit for recovery of money.

4. Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff in plaint including the signature and averred that the document i.e., promissory note is forged. It is further averred that there was previous enmity between the parties and because of said grudges, plaintiff filed the suit.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned trial court framed following issues:

i. Whether the promissory note dated 05.12.2009 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of said amount?

iii. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked and on behalf of defendant, no witnesses were examined and no exhibits were marked.

7. The learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2015 decreed the suit directing the defendant to pay Rs.4,80,000/- along with interest. While decreeing the suit, the learned trial court has observed as under.

“.....The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is categorical regarding the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant. PW2 has deposed that Ex.A1 was scribed by the plaintiff himself though it was scribed by some other person. However such contradictions would not make PW2 unbelievable. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 corroborates with each other and it proves that the defendant has executed Ex.A1. PW2 has identified the signature of the defendant in Ex.A1, though he has illiterate. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 could not be adequately challenged by the defendant in the cross examination. Moreover the defendant has failed to appear before the court and give evidence to contradict the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The defendant did not give evidence on oath deny his signature. Once the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is satisfactory regarding execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant, it is for the defendant to adduce evidence as to why his signature is appearing on Ex.A1. No evidence was adduced by the defendant and therefore an adverse interference is to be drawn against the defendant. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff categorically proves that Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant....”

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2015, defendant preferred an appeal vide A.S No.3 of 2023 on the file of learned I Addl. District Judge, Jagtial. The first appellate court on appreciation of facts and evidence dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 07.02.2025. The first appellate court while deciding the appeal made following observations:

“15. A careful perusal of the suit promissory note Ex.A1 makes it discernible that it is executed on 05.12.2009 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, and signed by the appellant/ defendant in Hindi on the two revenue stamps affixed thereunder. The rate of interest under Ex.A1 is mentioned as Rs.2/- per month per hundred for the said sum. It is no doubt true that the signature on the two revenue stamps which is attributed to the defendant.

16. At this stage, it is worthwhile to notice that Section 101 of the Evidence Act postulates that whoever desires any Court to