HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY S.A.No.984 of 2013 Date : 6-6-2014 Between :
Maddineni Lakshmana Rao .. Appellant And Bodapati Srinivasulu ..
Respondent Counsel for appellant : Sri Srinivas Rao Velivela Counsel for respondent : Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and decree dated 26-11-2010 in A.S.No.249/2009 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Ongole, whereby he has reversed the Judgment and decree dated 5-10-2009 in O.S.No.54/2008 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the Second Appeal are as under:
The respondent has filed the above mentioned suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,49,305/- against the appellant based on two promissory notes dated 7-2-2005 allegedly executed for Rs.75,000/- and Rs.70,000/- respectively, with interest @ 24% per annum and for costs. It is the pleaded case of the respondent/plaintiff that the appellant/defendant having borrowed the said sums has executed two promissory notes agreeing to repay the same as stated above. The appellant/defendant has filed a written statement wherein he has averred that the respondent/plaintiff is a stranger to him and that he has not borrowed any amount from him. He has further averred that he is an owner of Ac.11-00 of land having good reputation in the village and been elected as the Vice-Chairman of the Market Yard, Kanchikacherla and that he has no necessity to borrow the amount. The appellant has accordingly pleaded that the suit pronotes were forged.
Based on the respective pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2. To what relief?
On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, PW-1 to PW-3 have been examined and Exs.A-1 and A-2 have been marked. On behalf of the appellant/defendant, he examined himself as DW-1 and no documents have been marked. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. As noted above, the said Judgment and decree has been reversed by the lower appellate Court.
At the hearing, Sri Velivela Sreenivas Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the very fact that the respondent has admitted that he has seen the appellant only on the date of execution of the pronotes would give rise to a presumption that the claim of the respondent is wholly false as no person of normal prudence would lend money to a stranger.
From the Judgments of the Courts below, it is discernible that the appellant has acquaintance with PW-3 who in turn is intimately known to the respondent. Therefore, it is not unnatural for the respondent to lend money to the appellant. The respondent was able to prove the execution of the two pronotes by examining PW-2 who is the scribe and PW-3 who is the witness. If the appellant was serious in his contention that his signatures were forged, he ought to have got the pronotes sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with his signatures. No effort in this regard has been made by the appellant. On re- appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the lower appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court on a process of sound reasoning. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal for interference with the well considered Judgment of the lower appellate Court.
For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Second Appeal, SAMP No.2574/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 6-6-2014 AM