A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is only maintainable on a substantial question of law; mere appreciation of evidence or findings of fact by lower courts, including the validity of a promissory note under Section 87 of the NI Act, cannot be re-examined.

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Padala Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant on admission. Perused the entire record.

2. The second appeal is preferred by the respondent/defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree in A.S.No.148 of 2010 dated 13.11.2013 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, (III-FTC) Warangal at Mahabubabad, (‘First Appellate Court’), reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2010 in O.S.No.124 of 2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet, (‘Trial Court’) in a suit for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note dated 02.05.2003.

3. In short, the brief facts of the case are that there was acquaintance between the appellant and the respondent and on the basis of said acquaintance the respondent has lent money of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant on 02.05.2003 to meet his family necessities. The appellant promised to pay the loan amount with interest at 2% per month and as collateral security executed promissory note dated 02.05.2003 to repay the said amount on demand. Having received the loan amount, the appellant failed to repay the same, leading to issuance of legal notice dated 18.07.2005. In spite of receipt of legal notice, the appellant herein did not respond and therefore, the respondent filed suit for recovery of money. The appellant herein opposed the suit claim primarily on the ground of material omissions and corrections in the promissory note. More particularly in the date, month, year and the word ‘Guruvaram’ which was struck off in the promissory note. Besides omissions and corrections in the promissory note, the appellant denied having taken any loan from the respondent. Instead it is claimed that the respondent is running chit fund transactions without license and in that context there is a transaction between the parties, but there is no transaction of hand loan. Lastly, the appellant contended that the suit is barred by limitation and hence sought its dismissal.

4. The respondent got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 and A-2 documents. In addition, one T. Srinivas, who was an attestor to the promissory note has been examined as P.W.2. The appellant got himself examined as D.W.1 and no documents are marked. The Trial Court considered the issues as to whether the appellant obtained loan amount of Rs.50,000/-, whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment of past interest of Rs.28,000/- at 2% from 2003 onwards up to 2005. Said questions were answered in favour of the respondent. It is held that there is no evidence about running a private chits. Coming to the issue No.4 about signatures of defendant or fraud and whether there are material corrections, it is held that there are material corrections with respect to the date, month and the year on the promissory note.

5. Further, the Trial Court held that the initial of the appellant is not obtained beside the corrections and therefore, relying upon the judgment in the case of A. Subba Rao v. N. Ramana Reddy¹AIR 1966 AP 267, it is held that the burden is on the respondent to explain the alterations as to whether it was made with the consent of the parties or to effectuate common intention. In the absence of such plea, a presumption is made about the alterations being made subsequent to the execution of document and therefore, answered the issue in favour of the appellant. It is held that the suit is not barred by limitation whether the date is 02.05.2003 or 02.03.2003. In view of finding given as to material alteration, the suit has been dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the first appeal in A.S.No.148