JUDGMENT

Anil R. Dave, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Second Appeal No.587 of 2008 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the defendant (appellant herein) has filed this appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the litigation have been described as arrayed in the trial court.

4. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) for recovery of Rs.1,90,000/- from the defendant, who is the appellant herein, with interest and the claim was based on a promissory note, which was alleged to have been executed by the defendant for Rs.1,25,000/-.

5. The trial court dismissed the suit in the circumstances stated hereinbelow:

6. The case of the plaintiff was that a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- had been borrowed by the defendant and the defendant had, therefore, executed a Promissory note for Rs.1,25,000/- on 18th September, 2001. In spite of demand, as the amount was not repaid, the plaintiff was constraint to file Original Suit No.933 of 2003 for recovery of the said amount along with interest thereon.

7. The case of the defendant was that though the Promissory note had been executed by him, no amount was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. According to the defendant, he had borrowed Rs.1,25,000/- from the son of the plaintiff, namely Pattem Nanaji Sanker @ Nanaji. According to the defendant, four Promissory notes had been executed by him. One Promissory note was for Rs.50,000/- and three Promissory notes were for Rs. 25,000/- each. The defendant was having financial difficulties and, therefore, he could not pay the said amount to Nanaji but with the help of certain mediators, he had settled the dues with Nanaji for Rs.90,000/- and paid the same to him.

8. Upon payment of Rs.90,000/- by the defendant in full settlement of his dues, Nanaji ought to have returned the aforestated four Promissory notes to the defendant but he returned only three Promissory notes and did not return one Promissory note for Rs.25,000/-, as he had misplaced the same and he promised that he would return the said promissory note for Rs. 25,000/- as and when he would find it.

9. According to the defendant, the plaintiff had used the said fourth Promissory note of Rs.25,000/- which had been given by the defendant to Nanaji. According to the defendant, by adding a figure ‘1’ before ‘Rs.25,000/-’ the plaintiff had made an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from Rs.25,000/-. The plaintiff had taken undue advantage by interpolating figure ‘1’ before ‘25,000/-’ because Rs.25,000/- had not been written in words.

10. Thus, according to the case of the defendant, no amount was payable by him to the plaintiff but the plaintiff had misused the Promissory note given by him to Nanaji by interpolating figure ‘1’ before figure ‘25,000’.

11. At the time of trial, hand-writing expert, DW-4 had been examined, who stated that figure ‘1’ had been interpolated in the Promissory note whereby figure ‘25,000/-’ was made ‘1,25,000/-’.

12. The hand-writing expert was of the said opinion for the reason that he could show that space between figure ‘1’ and ‘2’ was not regular and the entire figure of Rs.1,25,000/- was not written in one line. Figure ‘1’, which was added subsequently was not in the same line of Rs. 25,000/-. His report was accepted by the trial court and after considering the evidence, more particularly the evidence of the hand-writing expert, the trial court came to the conclusion that the Promissory note, which had been executed for Rs.25,000/- was tampered with by the plaintiff by adding figure ‘1’ so as to make Rs.1,25,000/-.

13. The trial court also discussed the evidence led by the mediators i.e. DW-2 and DW-3, in whose presence the defendant had settled his dues with Nanaji, the son of the plaintiff. The suit was, therefore, dismissed.

14. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff had filed an appeal, being Appeal Suit No.346 of 2006 which had been allowed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (