The High Court · 2025

HON'BL,E SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ,\LISHEI'TY SECOND APPEAL No.35 of 2025 JUDGMI,]NT: The pre'sent Second Appe al is filed agg rievccl by the jr.rdgment ancl decree, dated 21.08.2024, passed b1 the Judge Family Court-curn-[V Additional District Judge ar Khanrrnanr in AS. No.4,i of'202i, whelcunder and whcreby the judgment and decroc datcd 16.06.2023 passed by the Senior (livil .ludgc, at Kharnuranr. in O.S.No.224 ol20 l6 u,as conflrmcd

2. The appcllant is def-endant; rcspondcnt is plairrLil'l'irr tlie suit. For convenier-rce. hereinalter the parlies are relerrec to as they are arravcd in the su it

3. Heald Sri M.Vcnu, lcarned counsel lbr the apl,ellant

4. Thc luctual rnatrix of the case in ntLt-shell. *,hich led to trling ol thc plesent Second Appeal, is that plarnLill' and the delendant arc acquainted with each other ancl out ,t1- srrch acquaintance, the def-endant approached the plaintilT and borrorved an arnount ol Rs.10,00,000/- tbr his lamilv r.ccessities on

22.07 .2011 ancl executed a demancl prornissory notc pr-onr isiug Lo repay, the ssid arnour]t with interest Q!24o/o per annut rt as and u,hen I I \ 2 LNA, J S.A.No.35 of 2025 demanded; that the plaintiff dernanded the defendant for tepayment of the loan alnount, however, the delendant failed to lepay the salne contrary to protnise and therefore plaintill'tllr:d the suit lor recovery of amount.

5. Defendant filed written statement and denying thc averments made in the ptaint and contendcd that the defenderrrt did not bonou' any amount at any poinl of tirre and therefore. thcrc is tlo qtlestion ol- execution o l' prort-rissor-v rlotc datcd 21.07.10 l1 b1 l-rim in fhvour of the plaintiff and that there is no cause of actiorr arise for filing the suit and that pron.rissory note is florged, fabricated, created for the purpose of filing of suit that delendant obtained hand Ioan and executed registered gift mortgage deed dated 04'112-013 vide document No.506l/2013 in t-avour of the plaintiff and that the def'endant requested the plaintil-f to c lcar the said Inoflgage alrlount' I lowever, the plaintilf kept silcnt and filed the suit by suppressing the real facts.

6. Basing on the pleadings of both the partics, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial: ' l. Whether lhe suit prontissorv note i-s tt'uc. t'ttlid and binding on the de/bndont ? :d J I,NA, J .\.A-No..lt o{ 2025

2. I'l''hetlur the suit promissory note is.fbrgetl t.tottnlcnl attd i.s not supportetl by consideralion?

3. llrlrcrhcr the plaintil/'is entitled .for recover t rtI sttit dntoutlt lritlt irtlet c.st as prol.ed.[or'?

1. ,''o v,hat reli.ef?'

7. During the course of trial, plaintiff himself u as e xamined as I).\\'.1 antl onc N4. Hanuntantha Reddy, who is onc o1'the attestors o1'suit plrrntissor'\, notc u,as examined as P.W.2 incl got malked Iix.A. I on his behalf. On behalf of thc delenciarl. clef-endant hinrself cxanrinccl as D.W. I und no documenLs werc nrark,:d on his behalt-. tl. Thc trial Court, on due consideration ol oral and rlocurnent:Lr',r, cvidence placed on record. decreed thc suit '.,ide iudgrnent ancl decrce dated 16.06.2023. The [rii:l (]ourt rvhilc clecreeing rhe suit rnade thc 1'o[lowing observations 'i0 lrt orcler to prove the conlention of the l lLti,ttirtl cttul lhe tronsactk)n took place under Ex.il I on 2 ), 07. )A 1 1. Tlrc plaintilf examined one ol' tltc .ttl(slot of the Suit prontissory note mder l-,t.1 I l) W'2r l{ortttntantha lleddy wlrc supported the ,crsiott o,r' Pl,l liRanta Rao, clearly established that t,\L: .:uit tran.\d(tion took ploce under Dx.Al. On lhr rtrhcr h;md. tlte cle;fbndunt./iiled to elicit adt'erse vet ;:o,t o/' t \ 4 I-NA, J S.A.No.35 oJ 2025 the plaintiJf in the evidence of PWI/P.Rama lkto and Pl(2/Hanumantha Retldy in order to disprove the conlention of the ancl plainti[[ Hence, lltc evidencc of PWt/Rama Rao uttd PI4i2/l{anutnattthct l?edd; cottpled v'ith tl'te doctttttcttl-s uder Er.ll is st(fcicttt lo prove that the suil 1trotttissory nole is not Jbrged and fabricated documettl. bul il is truc, genuine and valid and olso supported bv considerolitttr und tlte srtnte is binding on thc de.fendanl. ils such. tlrc pLaintilJ is entitled b tluint llrc suil urttttunl witlt interest .fi'om tlrc deJcnlant ontl thc tlc.[entlnttt is liablc lo pq) tlrc suil (tttoutlt tt'ith itttcrcsl to tltc plaintilJ. " 9 Aggrieved by the judgrrent and decrce passed b.v the trial Court, the plaintill preferred AS. No.43 ol 2023 on thc fllc of Judge, Family Courl-cum-lV Additionat District Judgc at Kharnrnam. The first Appellate Courl re-appreciated the entire cvidcnce and dismissed the appeal, vidc judgment and decrce dated 21 .08.2024 and confirmed the .iudgment passcd by the trial Court. In the impugned judgment, the first Appellatc Court made the fbllowing obseruations: " t6. The defendant No.I as D.ll/.1 hos udrnitted the acquaintance between him ond I'j.ll.l fi'om the childhood, who hails Ji'om the same village. lt vas i LN/1, J S.A. LYo.35 if 2025 .rlso adlni ed by D lI/ I in his cross exatninotion that tte ltnd haen borrov,ing lhc ontounls from P.tL'.I and repuying the .same to him. D.l(. I also admrrretl hi.s r isnotrtc on Ex.l I ond relying on tl,t, .saitl udnli.\tion onl.v', the triul cnn.t has dismi.tsed ,ltt,L.,,1. ltb 0 !, )023 to .tend tltc suit clocument to /h,. F S.L to get th('opin.ion of the c\:pcrl. Therefore. t,te triul (otLt-l ()n (otlsidering tlta material avdikible ot.t recortl. lttts come to o <:onclusion thot tlte de,.,tndatti l',int.st,ll .si.qttt,d ort tlrc pt.onotc-Ex.A t, uJicr brst rot itt,t I's I().t)(t 000/-.from tltc pluintilf on 22 07 20l t

10. Thr: learncd counsel firr the appellant would submit thar rhe trial Court as rvell as first appcllatc Courl decreed Lhe suit without properly apprcciating tl're fhct that except filing Ex. A. J prornissory note no crher ntaterial is placcd by the respor-rde n t/app: lla n t on rccord. l-hc Iealned couusel worrld further subm t thal tl-re trial Court as rvell as lilst appellate CoLrrt failed to apprcciatc the lhct that tl-rc le.s;ro nd cnt /plaintifl has not placed incornc, rax retunts of thc relevaltt period in proof of advancing money t(r the appellant/ delendant and therctbre, ought to ha,"e dismissed thc suit. I l. Learned counsel for the appcllant rvould subnrit thal thc r_rial Corrrt as rvell as the first Appellatc Court have not consiccred the 6 I_N/I,.t S.A.No.35 o[ 2025 ) oral and documentary evidence placed on l'ecord in proper perspective and camc to eroncoLls conclusions

12. A pelusal of record discloscs that the trial Courl as rvell as the trrst Appellate Court basing on the evidence ol PWs. I ar.rd 2, who is attestor of prornissory note have categolically licld that appe llant/de f'en dant borrowed the atnount and executcd prornissorl notc/ Ex.A.l in t-avour of respor-rder-rt/plainti ll. Both the Cor-rrts obsen,cd that though the appe llant/def'endant corltclrded that lte has cxecuted mortgage deed in f-avour o1- plaintitT at the tirne ol- taking hand loan, the same was not placed on record l -1. First appellate Court specifically obscrved tliat thc appcllant' det-endant disputed Ex.A. I promissory note and his signatute on thc said docutnent and filed an application in l.A. No.l ol 2023 to send the docurnent to FSL for expert opinion and the same was dismisse d by trial Courl. Howevet, appellant/del-endant did not takc any further steps to challenge the same and thus camc to conclusion that no tnaterial was placcd by appellant/defeudatrt to disprove the suit transaction I w 1 I,NA, J 5.,4.\o.35 rtf 2025

14. In consiclercd opinion ol this Court, learnecl counsel ft1. thc appellant lailccl to raise any sLtbstautial question of law ro be decided b1. this ('ourt in rhis Sccond Appeal. In fact, all thc grounds raisccl in this appeal arc' thctual in nat,rre ard ckr not qualily as thc substantial qucslions ol law in rcrrrs olsection 100 u.P.c

15. lt is ncll scttlcd principlc by a catena ol'<lccisior.rs ol- tl,re llorr'ble r\pcx (lourL that in rhc Scconcl Appeal f rlcC unde:r Section 100 C.P.(l.. this Llourt cannor inrcrtere with the findings on lacrs arrived at by tltc tirst Appellate Clourt, which are l.rased on proper appreciation ot- thc cllal and doclunentarv evidcncc < n lecord. I 6. Fur-Llrcr. in G urdev Kn ur l, Kakit, the Apex (lourt held that the High C'ourt sitting in Second Appeal cannc,t exarnine the cr, idence ,tncc again as a third tr.ial Cou( and tlr: porver unclcr t I Section 100 (1.1,.C. is ver.y limitcd and it can be cxercised only rvhcre a substantial question of law is raised and lalts lbr I I consideratron 11ZOOZ1 I Supreme Court Cases 546 l 8 LNA. J S.A.No..l5 of 2025

17. I{aving considelcd the entire material available on recor.d and the findings recoldcd by the trial Couft as well as the first Appellate Couft, this Court finds no ground or reason \\arranting intcllelence u,ith the said findings, under Section 100 C.p.C Moreover, the grounds raised b1, tl-re appellant are lactuai in nature and no question of law, rnuch less a substantial question ol law alises, lbr considcration irr this Sccond Appeal.

18. l lence, tlte Second Appeal f ails and the sarnc is accordinglr dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall sland closed To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER I Judge at Khammam, I Thg court of the Judge, Famiry court -cum- rV Additionar District 2. The Court of the principal Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. 3 One CC to SRt M V VENU, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to SRt p. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies I Pcsd/gh h- HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 JUDGMENT SA.No.3S of 2025 ,,, a r=\ ,," a-._ \ ,/J o o 16 sEP 20ff ,t^ -t' / \!., ,..,.,.,,,.,r'il -_:=:_ _ DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION