IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THIS THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.551 of 2014 Between:
Kambhampati Jyothi and 3 others . APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS And Seemakurti Naga Venkata Subba Rao @ Subba Rao . RESPONDENT The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.551 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants.
This second appeal is filed by the defendants. The plaintiff instituted the suit basing on a promissory note stating that the husband of the 1st defendant, by name Vikram borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from him on 18.04.2005 agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% per annum and subsequently he died. Thereafter, as the amount under the promissory note was not paid, the plaintiff instituted the suit against the wife, son and parents of the said Vikram. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that Vikram never executed any promissory note and never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, the signature on the said promissory note is forged and it does not belong to Vikram. They stated that the suit was filed at the instance of one Smt.Chalasani Sarada, who is a partner of Vikram in the business.
Admittedly, there were some disputes between the defendants and Smt.Chalasani Sarada., But because of the disputes, in the absence of any reliable evidence, it cannot be said that the suit was filed at the instance of Smt.Chalasani Sarada by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff to prove Ex.A1 promissory note and passing of consideration thereunder, apart from examining himself as PW 1, examined the scribe of the promissory note as PW 2. PW 2 had categorically stated in his evidence that the husband of the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour.
The defendants who disputed the signature of Vikram on the promissory note, have chosen to send the admitted signatures of Vikram with that of the disputed signature for comparison to the handwriting expert and the handwriting expert submitted his report stating that some more signatures are required for giving his opinion and the available signatures are not sufficient to give any opinion. However, the learned trial Court rightly held that the evidence of handwriting expert is only opinion evidence and when the document is proved by examining the witnesses who witnessed the execution of the document and passing of consideration thereunder, the Court can arrive at its own conclusion basing on the said evidence. The plaintiff therefore in the instant case proved the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and also passing of consideration under the said document. Both the Courts below rightly decreed the suit.
In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below, I do not see any question of law, much less substantial question of law, as urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, arises for consideration in the present second appeal.
The Second Appeal is therefore dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 05.09.2014 Dsr