The High Court · 2025

HOII'BLE SRI JUSTICE LA)ffI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.3O4 of 2O25 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated O7.O2.2O25, passed by the learned I Addl. District Judge, Jagtial, in A.S.No.3 of 2023, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated

06.09,2018, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, in O.S.No.105 of 2012 was confirmed.

2. The appellant is defendant, respondent is plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that ptaintiff filed a suit against defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,OO,OO0/- basing on the promissory note dated O5.L2.2OO9. It is averred that though the defendant agreed to repay the amount along with interest @ 24% per annum, \ \ I 2 LNA, J SA.No.304 of N25 he failed to repay the same despite several demands, hence, suit for recovery of money.

4. Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff in plaint including the signature and averred that the document i.e., promissory note is forged. It is further averred that there was previous enmit5r between tJ:e parties and because of said grudges, plaintiff filed,the suit.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned trial court framed following issues : i. Whether the promissory note dated 05.12.2A09 is true, ualid and binding on tlte defendant? ii. W?rcther the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of said amount? iii. To what relieft

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, PWs.l and 2 were examined and Ex.Al and Ex. A2 were marked ) \ i 3 LNA,J SA.No.304 of 2025 and on behalf of defendant, no witnesses were examined and no exhibits were marked.

7. The learned trial court uide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2015 decreed ttre suit directing the defendant to pay Rs.4,8O,OOO/- along with interest. While decreeing tJre suit, the learned trial court has observed as under. ".....Tf7.e euidene of PW1 and PW2 b categorical regarding the exeq,ttion of Ex.Al bA the defendant. PW2 ha"s deposed that Ex.A7 was scribed bg the ptaintiff himself though it was scribed. by some oth.er person. Houteuer stch antradicffons would not make PW2 unbelieuable. TIE euidence of PW I and' PW2 corroborates u.tith each oth.er and it proues that the defendant ha"s exeatted Ex.Al. PW2 has identified the signafitre of the defendant in Ex.Al, though he ha^s illiterate. The euiden@ of PWl and PW2 could not be adequatelg clwllenged bg tlrc defendant in the cross exami,nation. Moreouer the defend.ant has failed. to qppear before t?rc court and giue euidence to contradict the eutdene of PWI and PW2. Ttrc defend.ant did not giue euidene on oath deny his signature. Once the euidence of PWl and PW2 is sofis/a cto41 regarding / I \ ! 4 LNA,J SA.No.304 of 2025 executbn of Ex.Al bg tlrc defendant, it is for the defendant to adduce euid.en@ as to whg his signafire is appearing on Ex.Al. No euiden@ wcrs ad.dued bg the defentant and therefore an ad.uerse interferene is to be draun against the defendant. Tlle eui.dene addue.ed bg the platntiff categoricallg proues that F,x.AI wcLs exeq.tted bg the defendant...."

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

06.09.2015, defendant preferred an appeal uide A.s No.3 of 2023 on the lile of learned I Addl. District Judge, Jagtial. .The frrst appellate court on appreciation of facts and evidence dismissed the appeal uide judgment and decree dated 07.o2.2o25. The first appellate court while deciding the appeal made following observations: "L5. A careful perusal of the suit promissory note Erc,.Al makes it discernible that it ts exestted on 05.12.2009 for a sum of Rs.3,O},OOO/-, and signed bg the appellant/ defendant in Hindi on tlrc two reuenue stamps afftxed thereunder. The rate of interest under Ex.Al i"s mentioned as Rs.2/- per month per hundred for the said sum. It is no doubt I ) ,:1 5 LNA, J SA.No.304 of2025 tnte that tlrc signafire on the fito reuenue stamps which is attritruted to ttte defendant.

16. At this stage, it is worthwhile to notice that Section 1O1 of the Euidence Act postttlates that whoeuer desires ang Court to giue judgment as to any legat right or tiabilifu dependent on the e.xistence of facts whichtrc asserts, must proue that thctse facts exbt. TIrcrefore, in this ca.se, tlrc burden initially rests on the plaintiff utlw hns to prove that the promissory note Ex.Al u)as exeanted bg the d.efendant on A5.12.2009. As soon as the execution of the promissory note is proued bg the ptaintiff. the rute of presumption laid down in Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrum,ents Act comes to his aid to shift the burden to the defienilon .

19. The plea of tlrc appetlant/dekndant is that the Ex.Al promissory noE is created and forgecl one, he neuer exeqtted F,x.A7, keeping tlrc old bore grudge in mind, the Pw.l hn"s qeated Ex.Al bg forging the signahre of the defendant. To that eJfect hcz did not take any steps to sent tlrc Ex.Al for expert opinion, the self-seruing testimony of the defendant can not be considered that tlrc Ex.A1 is forged on,=. In the absence of the ang rebuttal euidence, he has not I . ; { i l :i i : ! t I lI I 6 LNA, J SA.No.304 of N25 /l=.'\ produ@d anA engent' awptable and' probable euidene before trtal ourt nor has rebutted tlrc case of ttrc plaintiff euen bg utay of prepoinderance of probabitities. The ba"td and self-seruing plea of the defendant in this regard. remained. unsubstantiated sine he t1a,s not established before trial court that the promlssory note under Ex.Al u)as neuer exeqtted bghiminfauouroftleplaintiffinconnectionuith regarding tlrc transaction, if really the defendant ha.s not botouted. the amount from Pw'7, what hurdles pieuented him, did not contest and adduced the euidene before the trial court, but simply lrc has fited chief-examination of the Dw' 1 and keep quite silent, and neuer entered into the utitness box to disprwe tlte ontention of the Pw. 1 under Ex'Pl'" g. The learned counsel for appellant/defendant subrnitted that tr.ial court as well as hrst appellate court comlnitted an elTor in law by apptying Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, since execution of promissory note itself is denied. He further submitted that both the courts have failed to appreciate the fact that the scriber of the doCument was not examined as well as contradictions \ / 7 LNA. J SA.No.304 of 2025 in the evidence of PW.2 with regard to scribing of the promissory note. He further submitted that both the courts have ignored the previous enmitJr betweerr the parties, though the sarne specifically pleaded by the appellant/ defendant and finally prayed to allow the appeal. 1(). A perusal of record. would disclose that, to substantiate his claim, the respondent/plaintiff examined one of the witnesses to the promissory note besides examining himself as PW.l and also got marked Ex.Al- promissory note. On ttre other hand, appellant/defendant except denying the promissory note, that the sarne was created because of previous enmit5r, neither examined any witness nor filed any d.ocumentary evid.ence. Appell ant/ defendant himsetf did not enter the witness box and no material w-as placed on record on his behalf to substantiate his contention and disprove suit claim. The first appellant court has rightly dismissed the appeal by referring to section 1 18 of Negotiable Instmments Act. / I \ \ 8 LNA, J SA.No.301 of 2025 --,rs

11. As regards the presumption, once the document is placed on record and one of the witnesses was examined the burden shifts to the defendant. In the present case, the appellant/defendant did not enter witness box, nor examined arry wihress to discharge his burden and also substantiate his claim that promissory note was manipulated and created.

12. In considered opinion of tl.is court, the appellant failed to raise arry substantial question of law to be decided by this court in this second Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are factuar in nature and do not quali$r as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 1OO C.P.C.

13. It is well setfled principte by a catena of decisions of the Honble Apex court t]:at in the second Appeal filed under section of 1oo c.P.c., this court cannot interfere with the findings on facts a:rived at by the first Appellate \ i\ 9 LNA,J SA.No.304 of 2025 Court, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentar5r evidence on record.

14. Further, in Gurdea Kaur a. Kaklr, the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 1OO C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and falls for consideration

15. Having considered the entire material available on \ record and the findings recorded. by the first Appellate ] ,. Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said Iindings, under Section 1OO C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant are factual in nature and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal. t 1ZOO7\ I Supreme Court Cases 546 / { { ( ( \ I ! l0 LNA, J SA.No.304 of 2025 i. i

16. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the s€une accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. L7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// OFFICER \ To,

1. The I Additional District Judge at Jagtial 2. The Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial 3. One CC to SRt p LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED "1810712025 t t JUDGMENT SA.No.304 of 2025 ) (J v l" (. * El-l Ji r[ 3 EEC ilar 1(r' -i,, -' rr ,._., ,. ,} . DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STATE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT , ! : a I i! i i !. I t t i I t I x t t: T l! I I I i i I