Gorantla Swathi

APNE0A0017922023 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

NELLORE :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

Present : Smt. G.Swathi,

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nellore.

Tuesday, this the 28 th day of April, 2026

Original Suit No.448 of 2023

Between: Basam Radamma, W/o Srinivasulu, aged about 50 years, R/o 4th Line, Lake view colony, Podalakur Road, Nellore city, SPSR Nellore District.

... Plaintiff

And

Thumati Lakshmamma, W/o Muni Reddy, aged about 52 years, R/o D.No.25-1-186, Lake View colony, 4th line Podalakur Road, Nellore city, SPSR

Nellore District. ... Defendant

This suit is coming on 16-04-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Kondaiah, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri. Y.Venkata Suresh, Advocate for defendant, upon hearing both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.5,83,080/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty

Three Thousand and Eighty only) being the principal and interest due by the defendant to the plaintiff on the basis of the suit promissory note, dt.01.05.2020 for Rs.3,39,000/- said to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff along with subsequent interest and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,39,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.05.2020 and executed a promissory note in her favour on the even date agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to her or to her order on demand. Later inspite of the repeated demands made by the 2 plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the suit promissory note due amount and she has been postponing to pay the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 21.04.2023 demanding her to pay the amount due under the suit promissory note, but the said notice was returned unserved with the endorsement that no such person in the address.

Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant made her appearance through her counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint apart from raising several other contentions.

4.The brief averments of the written statement are that about 10 years ago the defendant was one of the subscriber in the private chit ran by plaintiff for

Rs.50,000/- for 10 months period payable at Rs.5,000/- per month subject to dividends. During that period when the defendant became highest bidder in the chit auction, the plaintiff took receipt from the defendant for the chit price amount given to her. Subsequently, there are no chit transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. While so, since 2 years disputes arose between the defendant and her neighbour C.H.Bujjamma as she used to tie her cattle

before the house of defendant for which the defendant and her family

members objected. As such the said Bujjamma bore grudge against the defendant with intent to harass the defendant and get wrongful gain colluded with plaintiff and created the suit promissory note forging the signature of defendant based on the signatures of defendant available with plaintiff in the said receipt. There are variations in the writings of the suit promissory note which shows that promissory note is not scribed by one person and the alleged scribe and attestors are the henchmen of said Bujjamma and plaintiff herein. The signatures in the suit promissory note alleged to be that of the defendant are not that of the defendant and no consideration is passed to the defendant under the suit promissory note. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend 3 Rs.3,39,000/- to the defendant. The defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff based on the forged and fabricated promissory note.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.After filing written statement by the defendant, the matter was posted for compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure. But, the respective counsel reported there is no likelihood of compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under Section 89 of

Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the matter was posted for settlement of issues.

6.In view of the rival contentions of both the parties the following issues are settled for trail:

(i) Whether the suit promissory note, dt.01.05.2020 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for ?

(iii) To what relief ?

7.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff entered the witness box and examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and

Ex.A1 is marked. On behalf of the defendant, defendant herself is examined as D.W.1 and got examined the Handwriting expert as D.W.2 and Ex.X1 is marked through D.W.2.

8.Heard both the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant. Both the counsel filed written arguments apart from submitting oral arguments.

9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that from the evidence of

P.W.1 along with the evidence of P.W.2 and the documentary evidence under

Ex.A1, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant borrowed amount from her 4 under Ex.A1 promissory note and later the defendant failed to pay the amount due under the promissory note to the plaintiff even after the repeated demands made by her and hence, prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

10.The counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant never borrowed the amount from the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained a receipt for the chit price amount when she joined as a subscriber of the chit ran by the plaintiff 10 years ago and in respect of the disputes that arose in between the defendant and one C.H.Bujjamma, the suit promissory note is created by the said C.H.Bujjamma in collusion with the plaintiff, attestors and scribe based on the signature of the defendant available in the said receipt and the suit promissory note Ex.A1 is a forged and fabricated one not supported by consideration and as such the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

11.Issue No.1 :-

(i)In substantiation of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1 and deposed through her chief evidence affidavit. The gist is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,39,000/- from her on 01.05.2020 for her necessities and executed Ex.A1 promissory note on even date agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to her or to her order on demand. The defendant did not choose to pay the debt amount due to her under Ex.A1 promissory note and she has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other. The plaintiff got issued legal notice, dt.21.04.2023 to the defendant demanding her to pay the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note, but the said notice was returned unserved.

Hence, the suit.

(ii)P.W.2 who is said to be one of the attestors of Ex.A1 promissory note testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,39,000/- from the 5 plaintiff on 01.05.2020 and after receiving the said amount from the plaintiff the defendant made her signature in Ex.A1 promissory note in his presence agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and himself (P.W.2), one K.Manamma, S.Jayanth Kumar were acted as attesting witnesses to the said transaction and one Chalamchala Suresh Babu scribed the promissory note. The evidence of P.W.2 corroborates with the evidence of

P.W.1 as to the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and passing of consideration under the same.

(iii)The defendant contended that Ex.A1 suit promissory notes is a forged and fabricated one not supported by consideration. Section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act lays down statutory presumption as to the Negotiable

Instruments. One of such presumption is that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Once, the defendant showed either by direct or circumstantial evidence or by way of other presumption of law or fact that promissory note was not supported by consideration in the manner stated therein, then, the evidentiary burden would shift to the plaintiff by reviving his legal burden to prove that the promissory note was supported by consideration, at that stage the presumption under section 118 of the Act would disappear. Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 were cross examined at length by the counsel for the defendant in such a way reflecting the averments of the written statement, nothing worthy is elicited in support of the contention of the defendant, and the case of the defendant is remained as mere suggestions.

(iv)In support of his contention, the defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and deposed that she was the subscriber of the private chit ran by the plaintiff 10 years ago for Rs.50,000/- for a period of 10 months payable at Rs.5,000/- per month and during that period when she became the highest bidder in the 6 chit auction the plaintiff obtained the receipt from her for the chit price amount given to her. Since two years, disputes arose between her and her neighbour

C.H.Bujjamma as she used to tie her cattle before her house for which she objected along with her family members objected. As such the said

C.H.Bujjamma bore grudge and created Ex.A1 promissory note in collusion with the plaintiff with the assistance of scribe and attestors who are their henchmen by forging the signatures of the defendant, basing on her signature available with the plaintiff in the said receipt. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff based on the forged and fabricated suit promissory note.

(v)The counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant created the concocted story of forgery and fabrication of Ex.A1 promissory note based on her signature in the receipt obtained by the plaintiff from her in respect of the chit transaction in between them, is only to evade the payment of the amount due under the suit promissory note to the plaintiff and she has failed to prove her contention by adducing any valid evidence. As per the contention of the defendant, the plaintiff created the Ex.A1 promissory note by forging the signature of the defendant available with the plaintiff in the receipt which is obtained by her from the defendant in respect of the chit transaction between her and the defendant. Whereas, D.W.1(defendant) in her cross-examination stated that there is no pocket note book entrusted by the plaintiff as to payments made by her towards chit installments. D.W.1 stated that there are 10 subscribers to the chit, but she cannot say the names of other chit members. She further stated that she cannot examine any of the chit members to prove the said chit transaction. As contented by the counsel for the plaintiff, if really there is a chit transaction in between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant would have been proved the same by examining any one of the chit members. Admittedly, there is no material on record to show that the 7 plaintiff run private chit business 10 years ago and the defendant joined as one of the members of the said chit run by the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff ran private chit business and she joined as the member of the said chit ran by the plaintiff by adducing any valid evidence.

(vi)Further, as per the contention of the defendant, one C.H.Bujjamma got filed this suit through the plaintiff against her by creating the suit promissory note in respect of the disputes that arose in between her and the said

C.H.Bujjamma, as the said Bujjamma used to tie cattle in front of her house for which the defendant and her family members objected. But the defendant has failed to prove the relationship in between the plaintiff and the said

C.H.Bujjamma that made the plaintiff to file this suit towards the grudge bore by the said Bujjamma against the defendant. As contented by the counsel for the plaintiff, none of the independent witnesses were examined by the defendant to prove the said disputes in between her and the said Bujjamma and also to prove such relationship between the plaintiff and Bujjamma.

Hence, the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff created the suit promissory note in collusion with C.H.Bujjamma in respect of the disputes in between her and Bujjamma. Hence, the defendant has failed to prove her contention by adducing any valid evidence and the evidence of D.W.1 finds no support to the contention of the defendant.

(vii)As could be seen from the cross-examination of P.W.1, she stated that she knows the defendant since ten years and she lent the amount of

Rs.3,39,000/- to the defendant on 01.05.2020 at her house at about 10 a.m. in the presence of one Manemma, P.W.2, Jayanth Kumar and her husband and the denomination of the said amount is all Rs.500/- notes and the said

Manemma is her relative and also the relative of the defendant. She categorically denied the suggestion made by the counsel for the defendant that there are chit transactions in between her and the defendant and she 8 further denied that she obtained receipt from the defendant for the chit amount and that there are disputes in between the defendant and one Bujjamma and in respect of those disputes the said Bujjamma colluded with her and forged the signatures of the defendant in Ex.A1 promissory note. She also denied the suggestion made by the counsel for the defendant that the defendant never borrowed amount from her and she has no financial capacity to lend the said amount to the defendant. She clearly stated that her husband is a contractor and they have landed properties and she saved the amounts given by her husband and children and lent the same to the defendant under Ex.A1 promissory note.

(viii)P.W.2, the second attesting witness of Ex.A1 suit promissory note, in his cross examination deposed that he signed as second attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note and the third attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note is his son. He categorically denied the suggestion made by the counsel for the defendant that the alleged transaction under Ex.A1 promissory note was not taken place in his presence. He further denied that Ex.A1 promissory note is a forged and fabricated one created by the plaintiff and at the request of the plaintiff he made signature in the created promissory note. Hence, P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed facts as to the transaction under Ex.A1 promissory note corroborating with each other. Further, the contention of the counsel for the defendant that, the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note as he failed to examine all the attestors and scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note, is also not a valid contention. The plaintiff by examining herself as P.W.1 and examining the second attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note as P.W.2 proved the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note, wherein both P.W.1 and P.W.2 testified the facts corroborating with each other as to the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant and passing of consideration under the said promissory note.

9

(ix)Further, the another contention of the counsel for the defendant is that the contradictions in the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as to the time of execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and as to the distance in between the houses of P.W.1 and P.W.2, show that the alleged transaction under Ex.A1 was not taken place. Whereas, the counsel for the plaintiff contended that instead of stating Coivd-19 first wave in confusion P.W.2 stated mistakenly as

Covid-19 second wave and the said minor discrepancy is not material to dislodge his entire testimony. P.W.2 stated in his cross examination that the distance in between his house and the house of the plaintiff is about 8km, whereas P.W.1 in her cross examination stated that P.W.2 and another attestor are her neighbours and P.W.2 in his cross examination stated that he signed in Ex.A1 promissory note after Covid-19 second wave. As contended by the counsel for the plaintiff, the said contradictory statements made by

P.W.1 and P.W.2, are not material to dislodge their entire testimonies when the other particulars of execution of Ex.A1 promissory note are corroborating with each other. Further, the relationship between P.W.2 and the plaintiff (whether neighbour or not) is irrelevant to the defendant's forgery claim.

Further, the another contention of the counsel for the defendant that there is no proof to show that the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant prior to the filing of the suit and the same was returned unserved, is not valid, as in a suit for recovery of amount based on a promissory note, it is not mandatory to issue legal notice prior to the filing of the suit. The unmarked notice and returned cover are not the part of evidence as the same are not marked, but the fact that the defendant did not receive the notice is not crucial to prove the authenticity of the suit promissory note.

(x)The counsel for the defendant further contended that D.W.2, who is the

Handwriting expert (Director, Truth Labs), testified that the signatures of defendant on Ex.A1 promissory note (Q1 and Q2) are different from the 10 signatures of defendant made on withdrawl form of Andhra Bank dated 18.04.2019 (AS1 and AS2), photocopy of resolution of the meeting dated 18.04.2019 (AS3), pay-in-slip of Andhra Bank dated 24.03.2020 (AS4), pay-in- slip of Andhra Bank dated 24.05.2020 (AS5), pay-in-slip of Andhra Bank dated 24.07.2020 (AS6), pay-in-slip of Union Bank dated 21.08.2020 (AS7) and pay- in-slip of Andhra Bank dated 12.11.2019 (AS8). As per Ex.X1 report given by the expert, it shows that Ex.A1 promissory note is a forged and fabricated document created by the plaintiff for the purpose of this suit, and the said transaction did not take place. However, the counsel for the plaintiff contended that expert opinion which is not direct evidence cannot be relied upon solely and it must be corroborated with other direct evidence. In the present case, since the direct evidence supports the plaintiff's case, Ex.X1 (the expert's opinion), has no value.

(xi)In support of his contention, the counsel for the plaintiff relied on the decision of our Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Pre-Telangana) reported in “AIR 2016 HYDERABAD 118” in between “Bande Siva Shankara

Srinivasa Prasad vs Ravi Surya Prakash Babu And Others”. He further relied on another decision of our Hon’ble Apex Court in between “Chennadi Jalapathi

Reddy Vs. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead) Through LRs and Another” delivered on 27th August, 2019, wherein it is held that “substantive evidence (testimony from witnesses who saw a document signed) takes precedence over expert evidence (such as handwriting analysis)”. He also relied on another decision of our Hon’ble Apex Court reported in “AIR 2016

SUPREME COURT 4486” in between “S.P.S.Rathore vs C.B.I & Anr”, wherein it is held that “It is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence”.

11

(xii)It is held by the Hon’ble Madra High Court in a decision in between “Chandran Udayar vs Kasivel” delivered on 4th March, 2008 in C.R.P.

(NPD).No.1680 of 2003 and C.M.P.No.11326 of 2003, that “the opinion of handwriting expert may be relied upon along with other various items of external and internal evidence relating to document in question. Moreover, handwriting expert opinion is not conclusive and should be given some consideration and weight when it is corroborated by other evidence”. It is held by our Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in between “Sallepalli

Narasimha Reddy Vs Yerram Pedda Subba Reddy”, delivered on 22nd

November, 2013, that “When there is a conflict between the direct evidence and the expert opinion, the court ought to have placed reliance on the direct evidence”.

(xiii)It is held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a decision in between “Union Of

India & Ors. vs Shri Sukhvinder” delivered on 17th December, 2024 that “A court is competent to compare the disputed writing of a person with others which are admitted or proved to be his writings. It may not be safe for a court to record a finding about a person's writing in a certain document merely on the basis of expert comparison, but a court can itself compare the writings in order to appreciate properly the other evidence produced before it in that regard. The opinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive. It has also been held by this Court in a catena of cases that the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. It follows that it is not essential that the handwriting expert must be examined in a case to prove or disprove the disputed writing. It is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence”.

12

(xiv)In his cross examination D.W.2 i.e the handwriting expert admitted that there are variation in the admitted signatures AS1 to AS8 of the defendant. He further admitted that there will be variations of one’s own handwriting or signatures due to ill-health and age factor and writing conditions such as pen, paper and support etc. Further, as per the expert opinion the disputed signatures are traced forgery. The person who traced the signatures of another person must be in possession of the signatures of that person. The defendant have not placed any material much less cogent and convincing material to establish that the plaintiff is having signatures of defendant with her, which enabled her to trace the signature of the defendant on Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Hence, the opinion of D.W.2 that the disputed signatures on

Ex.A1 are traced forgery is not supported by any corroborative evidence.

(xv)As discussed and mentioned above, there is convincing and admissible evidence so far as to the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and when there is a conflict between direct evidence and expert opinion, reliance shall be placed on the direct evidence. There are no discrepancies as in the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as to the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and their evidence was not shaken during their cross examination and hence, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 establishes the case of the plaintiff as to the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and passing of consideration under that promissory note. Hence, it can be held that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is not a forged one and the same is true, valid and supported by consideration and is binding on the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12. Issue No.2:- 13

(i)In view of the findings under Issue No.1, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is answered positively in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.5,83,080/- (Rupees Five Lakhs

Eighty Three Thousand and Eighty only) and the plaintiff is also entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit to till the date of decree, and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till realization on principal sum of Rs.3,39,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty

Nine Thousand only).

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- G.Swathi

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

NELLORE.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1: B.Padmamma P.W.2: S.Manoj Kumar

For Defendant: D.W.1:Thumati Lakshmamma D.W.2.G.V.H.V.Prasad

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1:Original promissory note dt.01-05-2020 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

For Defendant: Ex.X1: Original report issued by Truth Labs bearing File No.TLH/QD/233/2025 dt.14-08-2025 consisting 6 sheets.

Sd/- G.Swathi Sd/-

G.Swathi S PCJ (JD), NELLORE.

APNE0A0015472023 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

NELLORE ::

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Present : Smt. G.Swathi,

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nellore.

Monday, this the 27 th day of April, 2026

Original Suit No.358 of 2023

Between: Ratakonda Ramanaiah, s/o Subbaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Business, R/o Ram Nagar, Dargamitta, Nellore

... Plaintiff

And

Velam Srinivasulu, S/o Vellam Ramanaiah, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Property holder and R/o. 26.5.150, Venkat Reddy Nagar, Vedayapalem,

Nellore... Defendant

This suit is coming on 13-04-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. B.Srinivasan, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri.V.Upendra Rao Advocate for defendant, upon hearing both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.8,06,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Six

Thousand only) being the principal and interest due by the defendant to the plaintiff on the basis of the suit promissory note, dt.05.12.2015 for

Rs.3,00,000/- said to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff along with subsequent interest and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.12.2015 and executed a promissory note in his favour on the even date 2 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to him to his order on demand. On repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- to him on 05.01.2018 towards part payment of the suit promissory note and endorsed the same on the back side of the suit promissory note with his own handwriting. Again the defendant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to him on 10.05.2020 towards part payment of the amount due under the suit promissory note and endorsed the same on the back side of the suit promissory note with his own handwriting. Thereafter the defendant failed to repay the balance amount due under the suit promissory note even after the repeated demands made by the plaintiff and he has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint apart from raising several other contentions.

4.The brief averments of the written statement are that the plaintiff is a stranger to the defendant and the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one. One Thummala Venkata Subbanaidu, who is the attestor of the suit promissory note and also the attestor of part payment endorsements, filed a suit in O.S.No.142 of 2022 against the defendant herein on the file of Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Nellore on 26.12.2022 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,44,37,913/- for the alleged debt due under the promissory notes dated 07.04.2015, 01.06.2015, 04.08.2015, 07.12.2015, 15.05.2016 and 10.11.2017. In the said suit, the defendant herein filed detailed written statement with correct facts and as such the suit in OS No.142 of 2022 is under sub-judice. The said Thummala Venkata

Subbanaidu also filed I.P.No.27/2023 against the defendant herein on the 3 file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and the same is pending. The said

Thummala Venkata Subbanaidu is behind the plaintiff to file this suit with dishonest intention to harass the defendant. The Plaintiff and the said

Thummala Venkata Subbanaidu colluded together and created the suit promissory note and also the said part payment endorsements and filed the suit without issuance of any demand notice to the defendant. The plaintiff has no capacity to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant as alleged in the plaint. The defendant never received any consideration under the alleged suit promissory note. The said alleged part payments are also created by the plaintiff to save limitation. The another attestor of the suit promissory note is also stranger to the defendant and henchman of

Thummala Venkata Subbanaidu. There is no cause of action to file the suit.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.After filing written statement by the defendant, the matter was posted for compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under Section 89 of

Code of Civil Procedure. But, the respective counsel reported there is no likelihood of compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under

Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the matter was posted for settlement of issues.

6.In view of the rival contentions of both the parties the following issues are settled for trail:

(i) Whether the suit promissory note, dt.05.12.2015 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

(ii) Whether the part payment endorsements, dt.05.01.2018 for Rs.5,000/- and dt.10.05.2020 for Rs.10,000/- are true and correct ?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for ?

4

(iv) To what relief ?

7.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff entered the witness box and examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. The Handwriting expert, Truth Labs, Hyderabad, was examined as

C.W.1 and the original report issued by him was marked as Ex.C1.

8.Heard both the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant. Both the counsel filed written arguments apart from submitting oral arguments.

9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that from the evidence of

P.W.1 along with the evidence of P.W.2 and C.W.1 and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and Ex.C1, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant borrowed amount from him under Ex.A1 promissory note and after making Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 part payment endorsements the defendant failed to pay the balance amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note to the plaintiff even after the repeated demands made by him and hence, prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

10.The counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant never borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and one Thummala Venkata

Subbanaidu got filed this false suit against the defendant through the plaintiff who is his henchman by creating the suit promissory note. Ex.A1 suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one not supported by consideration and the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5

11.Issues No.1 and 2:-

(i)In substantiation of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and deposed through his chief evidence affidavit. The gist is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from him on 05.12.2015 for his necessities and executed Ex.A1 promissory note on even date agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to him or to his order on demand. On the demands made by the plaintiff the defendant paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- to him on 05.01.2018 towards part payment of the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note and endorsed the same on the back side of Ex.A1 promissory note vide Ex.A2 part payment endorsement. The defendant again paid an amount of

Rs.10,000/- to him on 10.05.2020 towards part payment of the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note and endorsed the same on the back side of

Ex.A1 promissory note vide Ex.A3 part payment endorsement. Later the defendant did not choose to pay the debt amount due to him under Ex.A1 promissory note and he has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other. Hence, the suit.

(ii)P.W.2 who is said to be the attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note and

Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 part payment endorsements testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.12.2015 and after receiving the said amount from the plaintiff the defendant made his signature in Ex.A1 promissory note in his presence agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and he acted as attesting witness to the said transaction and the defendant self scribed the recitals of

Ex.A1 promissory note. On 05.01.2018 the defendant made part payment of

Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff in his presence towards the amount due under

Ex.A1 promissory note and endorsed the same on the back side of Ex.A1 6 promissory note vide Ex.A2 part payment endorsement and he (P.W.2) signed as the attestor to Ex.A2 part payment endorsement. On 10.05.2020 the defendant made part payment of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff in his presence towards the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note and endorsed the same on the back side of Ex.A1 promissory note vide Ex.A3 part payment endorsement and he (P.W.2) signed as the attestor to Ex.A3 part payment endorsement. The evidence of P.W.2 corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1 as to the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and passing of consideration under the same and execution of Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 part payment endorsements.

(iii)The handwriting expert, Truth Labs, Hyderabad, who is examined as

C.W.1, deposed that he has been working as Director, Truth Labs

Hyderabad since 2007 and the case was assigned to him for Forensic

Handwriting Examination for comparison of disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of Velam Srinivasulu (defendant). He compared the questioned signatures marked as “Q1 to Q4” i.e. signatures of the defendant made in Ex.A1 suit promissory note and Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 part payment endorsements with the admitted signatures of the defendant made in his written statement and vakalath marked as “AS1 to AS4” by following the standard procedures and protocols of Forensic Handwriting Examination with the help of available scientific instruments. After careful and thorough examination of both the questioned and stranded signatures, he is of the opinion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed admitted signatures marked as “AS1 to AS4”, (Velam Srinivasulu/defendant) also wrote the red enclosed questioned signatures marked as “Q1 to Q4”, and he issued

Ex.C1 report accordingly. C.W.1, the Handwriting Expert clearly testified that both the questioned signatures i.e. the signatures of the defendant made in 7 Ex.A1 promissory note and Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 part payment endorsements thereon and his admitted signatures made in his written statement and vakalath are written by one and the same person i.e. the defendant only

(iv)The defendant contended that Ex.A1 suit promissory note and Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 part payment endorsements thereon are forged and fabricated documents and the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration.

Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act lays down statutory presumption as to the Negotiable Instruments. One of such presumption is that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Once, the defendant showed either by direct or circumstantial evidence or by way of other presumption of law or fact that promissory note was not supported by consideration in the manner stated therein, then, the evidentiary burden would shift to the plaintiff by reviving his legal burden to prove that the promissory note was supported by consideration, at that stage the presumption under section 118 of the Act would disappear.

Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 were cross examined at length by the counsel for the defendant in such a way reflecting the averments of the written statement, nothing worthy is elicited in support of the contention of the defendant, and the case of the defendant is remained as mere suggestions.

(v)In support of his contention, the defendant examined himself as

D.W.1 and deposed that the plaintiff is a stranger to him and one Thummala

Venkata Subbanaidu (P.W.2) got filed this false suit against him through the plaintiff by creating Ex.A1 promissory note. The Thummala Venkata

Subbanaidu filed a suit against him on the file of Hon'ble IV Additional

District Judge, Nellore in O.S.No.142 of 2022 based on forged and

8 fabricated promissory notes for Rs.1,44,37,913/-. The said Thummala

Venkata Subbanaidu also filed I.P.No.27 of 2023 against the defendants herein on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, which is pending.

The plaintiff and the second attestor in collusion with the said Thummala

Venkata Subbanaidu created Ex.A1 promissory note with forged signatures of the defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit without giving any demand notice to him and Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 part payment endorsements are created in order to save limitation. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff.

(vi)The counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant created the concocted story of forgery and fabrication of Ex.A1 promissory note and

Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 part payment endorsements thereon, is only to evade the payment of the amount due under the promissory note to the plaintiff and the defendant has failed to prove his contention by adducing any valid evidence. D.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that the suit filed by

P.W.2 against him is no way related to the present suit. D.W.1 in his cross examination stated that at the time of filing his written statement he verified the copy of the suit promissory note and he has not verified the original suit promissory note, and without seeing the original promissory note he came to the conclusion that his signatures were forged in the suit promissory note.

Further D.W.1 in the cross examination stated there arose disputes in between him and P.W.2 in respect of supply of water tanks. But, there is no mention or whisper in the written statement and chief examination affidavit of D.W.1 that disputes arose in between him and P.W.2 in respect of supply of water tanks.

(vii)Further, D.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that he used to borrow amounts from P.W.2 and used to repay the same. Hence, DW1 9 clearly admitted that he used to borrow the amounts from P.W.2 and he further admitted that the suit filed by P.W.2 is not related to the present suit.

As the defendant has taken forgery plea, the plaintiff proved the same by examining C.W.1 handwriting expert whose evidence is corroborating with substantive evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Hence, the plaintiff has proved the genuineness of the signatures of the defendant made in Ex.A1 promissory note and Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 part-payment endorsements thereon and in the absence of the other material on record, the sole testimony of

D.W.1 finds no support to the contention of the defendant.

(viii)The counsel for the defendant contended that P.W.2 in his cross examination clearly admitted that P.W.1 is having no such financial capacity to lend the amount, which shows that Ex.A1 promissory note is created by the plaintiff in collusion with P.W.2. Whereas, the counsel for the plaintiff contended that when other particulars of the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant are corroborating, based on the mere statement made by P.W.2 in his cross-examination that P.W.1 have no financial capacity to lend amount, his entire testimony cannot be dislodged, and the said contention of the counsel for the defendant is not valid. As could be seen from the cross examination of P.W.1, he clearly stated that he is running provision shop at Ramnagar, Nellore and he stated that he does not know the turnover of defendant’s business. P.W.2 in his cross examination stated that the defendant is A-class contractor, but he does not know the turnover of his business. P.W.1 stated that he got acquaintance with the defendant through P.W.2 and he lent the amount to the defendant at the request of P.W.2. In his cross examination P.W.2 also stated that the plaintiff got acquaintance with the defendant through him and he introduced the defendant to the plaintiff when he requested to lend the 10 amount and later the plaintiff lent the amount to him directly. Hence, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not admitted that the plaintiff did not lend the amount to the defendant and both of them stated that the plaintiff got acquaintance with the defendant through P.W.2 and at the request of P.W.2 only the plaintiff lent the amount to the defendant. As contented by the counsel for the plaintiff, based on the said statement made by P.W.2 that P.W.1 have no financial capacity to lend the amount, his entire testimony cannot be dislodged as he did not specifically stated that the plaintiff have no financial capacity to lend the amount to the defendant under Ex.A1 promissory note.

(ix)The another contention of the counsel for the defendant is that there is variation in the age of the defendant deposed by P.W.1 in his cross examination from the original age of the defendant, which shows that the defendant is an unknown person to the plaintiff. He further contended that the statement made by P.W.1 in his cross examination that he got issued legal notice to the defendant through P.W.2 and he does not remember the address of the defendant, shows that the plaintiff does not know the address of the defendant and P.W.2 got filed the suit through the plaintiff against the defendant by creating the suit promissory note. Whereas, the counsel for the plaintiff contended that the minor variation of age of the defendant stated by P.W.1 is not material and the said contention of the counsel for the defendant is not valid. P.W.1 in his cross examination stated that the defendant is aged about 50 years, whereas the original age of the defendant is 58 years. P.W.1 stated that the age of the defendant is nearly 50 years and based on the said variation of the age of defendant deposed by P.W.1, it cannot be inferred that the plaintiff is an unknown person to the defendant. Further, P.W.1 has not specifically stated that he does not know the defendant and his address and he stated that he does not remember the 11 address of the defendant. Further, in a suit for recovery of amount it is not mandatory to issue legal notice prior to the filing of the suit. Based on the said statement made by P.W.1 in his cross examination that he got issued legal notice to the defendant through P.W.2, no inference can be drawn that

P.W.2 got filed this suit against the defendant by the plaintiff by creating

Ex.A1 promissory note.

(x)The counsel for the defendant further contended that C.W.1 in his cross examination stated that there is a time gap of 8, 6 and 3 years between questioned and standard signatures and he admitted that he is not having membership in American Board of Document Examination and as such the report which is marked as Ex.C1 is not conclusive proof as there is such time gap between the questioned and standard signatures and the handwriting expert is not qualified. Whereas, the counsel for the plaintiff contended that when the expert opinion is corroborated with the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2, the said contention of the counsel for the defendant is not valid. As contented by the counsel for the plaintiff, while not conclusive on its own, Expert opinion adds weight when combined with other evidence.

Here, in the present case, expert opinion (Ex.C1) supports the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2, strengthening the case of the plaintiff, and the said contention of the counsel for the defendant is not valid.

(xi)In support of his contention, the counsel for the defendant relied on the decision of our Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in between “Kunamneni Nageswara v. Kunamneni Dasaradharamaiah, And another”, delivered on 27th June, 2018, wherein it is held that “If the two sets of signatures are sent to an expert and his opinion is obtained, though it may be in the nature of opinion evidence, yet, it will be one more additional piece of evidence, which may be of considerable assistance to the trial Court not 12 only in assessing the entire evidence including the other evidence, which the parties may let in during the course of trial, but also in arriving at a just decision in the matter”. But, the above mentioned decision is in support of the case of the plaintiff and not supporting the contention of the defendant.

(xii)The counsel for the defendant further relied on another decision of our

Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravathi in between “Pydimarri

Venkateswarlu Vs. Pydimarri Jalamma” in S.A.No.933 of 2011 delivered on 8th November, 2023. But, the facts of the above mentioned decision are entirely different from the facts of the present case. In the above mentioned decision, the trial Court dismissed the suit based on expert opinion and the disputed signatures. Here, in the present case, the plaintiff made the application and requested the court to send the signatures of the defendant in Ex.A1 promissory note and Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 part payment endorsements to the handwriting expert along with the admitted signatures of the defendant made in his written statement and vakalath and Ex.C1 expert opinion given by the handwriting expert (C.W.1) is corroborating with the substantial evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Hence, the above mentioned decision relied by the counsel for the defendant is not applicable to the facts of the present case and need not be considered.

(xiii)Though the defendant contended that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one not supported by consideration and Ex.A2 and

Ex.A3 part payment endorsements are forged into order to save limitation, he failed to prove the same by adducing any valid evidence either orally or documentary. Mere making such vague statement and bare denial of passing of consideration is not at all sufficient to hold that the defendant discharged the initial onus of proof, by showing the non-existence of the consideration. On perusal of the evidence on record, the defendant has not 13 brought on record, such evidence, to believe that the consideration did not exist or it's non existence was so probable that prudent man shall act upon the plea that it did not exist. Hence, it can be held that Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant, and Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 part payment endorsements are true and valid. Accordingly, issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12. Issue No.3:-

(i)In view of the findings under Issues No.1 and 2, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is answered positively in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.8,06,000/- (Rupees Eight

Lakhs Six Thousand only) and the plaintiff is also entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit to till the date of decree, and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till realization on principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only).

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-G.Swathi

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

NELLORE.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1: R.Ramanaiah P.W.2: T.Venkatasubbaiah Naidu

For Defendant: D.W.1: Velam Srinivasulu 14

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1:Original promissory note, dt.05-12-2018 executed by the defendant.

Ex.A2:Part payment endorsement of Rs.5,000/- , dt.05-01-2018 made on Ex.A1 promissory note.

Ex.A3:Part payment endorsement of Rs.10,000/-, dt.10-05-2020 made on Ex.A1 promissory note.

For Defendant: - Nil -

Sd/-G.Swathi S

PCJ (JD), NELLORE.

APNE0A0027482022 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

NELLORE :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

Present : Smt. G.Swathi,

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nellore.

Wednesday, this the 29 th day of April, 2026

Original Suit No.424 /2022

Between: Yanamala Srinivasulu, S/o Subhramanyam, Aged about years, Hindu, D.No.4-8-262,FCI Colony,

... Plaintiff

Nawabpet, Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District.

And

Akkisetty Kamakshi Devi, W/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about years, Sri Surya residency, flat No: 401, D.No:16-8-235, Ramalingapuram, SPSR

... Defendant

Nellore District.

This suit is coming on 16.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Vemana Gopi, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri. Gummadi

Stalin Babu, Advocate for defendant, upon hearing both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of amount of Rs.9,52,400/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Four

Hundred only) being the amount of principal and interest due on suit promissory note dated 06.11.2019 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.6,00,000/- and for subsequent interest and costs.

2.The averments mentioned in the plaint, in brief, are that the defendant is a business woman borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 06.11.2019 and in consideration thereof the defendant executed promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. The 2 plaintiff demanded the defendant several times to repay the amount due under the said promissory note and the defendant has been postponing the same on some pretext or other and she failed to pay the amount due under the above mentioned promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant made her appearance through her counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint apart from raising several other contentions.

4.The brief averments of the written statement are that the plaintiff is a stranger to the defendant. The defendant is not a businesswoman and she is not doing any business as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant, who is a housewife, has no necessity to borrow such a huge amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff, who is an unknown person to her. The suit promissory note, is a forged and fabricated one. No consideration was passed to the defendant from the plaintiff under the said promissory mode. It is a conspiracy played by the group of people who are friends to the son of defendant and they filed false suits against the defendant. The defendant not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and she never executed any promissory note in his favour. The suit promissory note is brought into existence for the purpose of filing of this suit and the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff based on a forged and fabricated promissory note. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5.After filing written statement by the defendant, the matter was posted for compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure. But, the respective counsel reported there is no likelihood of compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under Section 89 of

Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the matter was posted for settlement of issues.

3

6.In view of the rival contentions of both the parties the following issues are settled for trail:

(i)Whether the suit promissory note, dt.06.11.2019 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

(iii)To what relief?

7.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined himself as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 was marked. To support his case, one of the attestors of the Ex.A1 promissory note was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant herself was examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 and Ex.B2. The Handwriting expert is examined as D.W.2 and

Ex.C1 was marked through him.

8.Heard both the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant.

9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of P.W.1 along with the evidence of P.W.2 and the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 prove that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 promissory note and later failed to pay the amount due under the said promissory note even after the repeated demands made by the plaintiff.

Hence, prayed to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

10.The learned counsel for the defendant argued that, the plaintiff filed this false suit against the defendant by creating Ex.A1 promissory note to gain unlawfully and the suit promissory note is a forged ad fabricated one not supported by consideration. The defendant never borrowed the amount from the plaintiff who is a stranger to her and she has not executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any 4 amount from her based on a forged and fabricated promissory note and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

11.Issues No.1 :-

(i)In substantiation of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined himself as P.W.1 and deposed through his chief evidence affidavit. The gist is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 06.11.2019 for her business necessities by executing Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Later the defendant did not choose to pay the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note even after the repeated demands made by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

P.W.2 who is said to be one of the attestors of Ex.A1 promissory note testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 06.11.2019 and after taking the said amount from the plaintiff the defendant made her signatures on Ex.A1 promissory note in his presence agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and himself (P.W.2) and one V.Mallikarjuna Rao were acted as attesting witnesses to Ex.A1 promissory note and Vellisetty

Kesava Rao scribed the recitals of the promissory note.

(ii)As could be seen from the averments of the written statement and the cross examination of P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 and chief evidence affidavit of D.W.1, it is the contention of the defendant that she never borrowed amount from the plaintiff and that she has not executed Ex.A1 promissory note for

Rs.6,00,000/- on 06.11.2019 in favour of the plaintiff and the same is a forged and fabricated one created by the plaintiff for wrongful gain in collusion with the scribe and attestors, the defendant is a complete stranger to the plaintiff and the suit appears to be a conspiracy orchestrated by certain individuals known to defendant’s son, who made false claims against the defendant with ulterior motives.

5

(iii)The further contention of the counsel for the defendant is that the evidence of D.W.2 (Handwriting Expert, FSL, Hyderabad) and Ex.C1 (Expert

Opinion) clearly establish that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is a forged one created by the plaintiff in collusion with the scribe and attestors. Whereas, the counsel for the plaintiff contended that the evidence of D.W.2 finds no support to the contention of the defendant as expert opinion is not conclusive proof and it is to be corroborated with primary evidence, and the plaintiff is entitled to the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act and from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the plaintiff has proved the execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note by the defendant in his favour and passing of the consideration under the same and as such he is entitled for the suit amount.

(iv)As could be seen from the cross examination of P.W.1, he stated that there is no documentary proof to show that he was having the amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- by the time of transaction under Ex.A1 promissory note. Further,

P.W.1 stated that he studied upto 7th class and he is running two businesses simultaneously solar company and construction business. But, he stated that there is no registered firm for construction business. He further stated that he has not filed any proof to show that the defendant is doing business. Hence, the plaintiff failed to prove his financial capacity to lend the said amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendant under Ex.A1 promissory note and also the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant is doing business and she borrowed the amount from him for the purpose of her business by adducing any valid evidence.

(v)Further, P.W.2, who is said to be one of the attestors of Ex.A1 promissory note in his cross examination stated that at the time of the transaction under Ex.A1 promissory note himself, plaintiff, defendant, scribe and V. Kesava Rao were present. Whereas, P.W.1 in his cross examination stated that at the time of the transaction under Ex.A1 promissory note himself, plaintiff, defendant, her son, P.W.2 and V. Mallikarjuna were present. There is 6 no mention by P.W.2 about the presence of other attestor V. Mallikarjuna Rao at the time of the transaction under Ex.A1 promissory note. Further, P.W.2 in his chief examination stated that V. Mallikarjuna Rao signed as first attestor and he signed as second attestor in Ex.A1 promissory note, whereas during his cross examination, P.W.2 first stated that he signed as second attestor and he again stated that he signed as first attestor in Ex.A1 promissory note.

Hence, when P.W.1 failed to prove his source of income to lend the amount to the defendant and the P.W.2 failed to mention the presence of the other attestor at the time of the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note, their evidence finds no support to the case of the plaintiff and the same falsifies the contention of the plaintiff and probabilises the contention of the defendant.

(vi)The counsel for the defendant contended that the defendant denied her signatures made in Ex.A1 promissory note and she has proved the same by sending Ex.A1 promissory note to the handwriting expert. As contended by the counsel for the defendant, the evidence of D.W.2 who is the handwriting expert along with Ex.C1 expert opinion proves that the signatures of the defendant are forged in Ex.A1 promissory note. As per settled law the initial burden always lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the promissory note, once the execution of the promissory note is established in the manner known to law, then the statutory presumption available under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act comes into operation in favour of the plaintiff.

(vii)The counsel for the plaintiff contended that the evidence of D.W.2 and

Ex.C1 are not valid as D.W.2 does not possess academic degree to act as handwriting expert and the comparison of the disputed signatures with the photocopies diminishes its reliability. He further contented that D.W.2 himself admitted that there is variation in the standard signatures used for comparison purpose and no similarities were mentioned among those signatures and as such Ex.C1 handwriting expert's opinion finds no support to the case of the defendant. Whereas, the counsel for the defendant contended that P.W.2 7 underwent sufficient training and also worked for 10 years as a document expert and as such, he is a competent person to give opinion by comparing the disputed signatures of the defendant made in the suit promissory note with that of the strandard signatures in Ex.B1 certified copy of deposit of title deed and the said contention of the counsel for the plaintiff is not valid.

(viii)As could be seen from the evidence of D.W.2, handwriting expert, Truth

Labs, Hyderabad, gave an opinion Ex.C1 that “The person who wrote the blue enclosed admitted signatures marked as “A.S.1” to “A.S.12” (A. Kamakshi

Devi/defendant) did not write the red enclosed questioned signatures marked as “Q1” and “Q2”. He testified that he examined the questioned signatures Q1 and Q2 on Ex.A1 promissory note with the 12 admitted standard signatures of

A. Kamakshi Devi/defendant herein i.e. A.S.1 to A.S.12 on Ex.B1 and gave the said opinion vide Ex.C1. He further deposed in detail that the key distinctions in between the questioned signatures Q1 and Q2 and the admitted signatures

AS1 to AS12 include the apex of letter ‘A’ is sharp in Q signatures but blunt in

AS signatures, the staff of letter ‘K’ is elongated in Q signatures but short in AS signatures, the counter of letter ‘a’ is narrow and open in Q signatures but wide and closed in ‘AS’ signatures, the beak of letter ‘S’ forms a loop in Q signatures, but no such loop exists in AS signatures, the staff of letter ‘h’ is short in Q signatures but elongated in AS signatures, the bowl of letter ‘D’ is wide in Q signatures but narrow in AS signatures, the eye of letter ‘e’ is wide in

Q signatures, but narrow in AS signatures and Q signatures exhibit high skill, wrist movement, fast speed. AS signatures show medium skill, hand movement, medium speed. He further stated that the above differences are significant and are sufficient in nature and are not due to intended disguise or natural variations.

(ix)D.W.2 in his cross-examination clearly stated that he underwent training at CFSL, IICT, APFSL (Hyderabad), NICFS (Delhi) and worked for 10 years as a document expert at APFSL, which is a Government laboratory, and the 8 same shows that D.W.2 is having sufficient experience to compare writings and signatures. Though D.W.2 in his cross examination admitted that Ex.B1 is a certified copy of deposit of title deed, he categorically denied the suggestion made by the counsel for the plaintiff that there will be differences in the conclusion when they examine photocopies in place of originals. Further as contended by the counsel for the defendant, all admitted signatures “A.S.1 to

A.S.12” are signatures of the defendant herself on a registered document

Ex.B1 memorandum of deposit of title deed dated 29.04.2021 executed before the Sub-Registrar, Nellore, a document with the highest probative value. When it was suggested by the counsel for the plaintiff, D.W.2 acknowledged that signatures vary depending on pen, paper, health conditions and age. But he stated that natural variations cannot account for differences in the fundamental formation of letters, the skill level, the speed and the movement pattern, all of which are intrinsic characters of a person's handwriting, not susceptible to variation by circumstances. Further, D.W.2 clearly stated that he has not mentioned similarities in his report as there are no similarities seen between the questioned and admitted signatures. Hence, Ex.C1 report given by D.W.2 (Handwriting Expert) stands unshaken despite cross-examination by the counsel for the plaintiff.

(x)In support of his contention, the counsel for the defendant relied on the decision of our Hon'ble Apex Court reported in "2008 (2) SCC 144" in between “Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G.Hedge”, wherein it is held that “Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, raises a presumption of consideration in favour of the holder of a negotiable instrument. However, this is a rebuttable presumption. Once the defendant disputes the execution of the instrument and offers prima facie evidence of forgery, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to establish authenticity. He further relied on another decision of our Hon'ble Apex Court reported in “AIR 1980 SC 531”, “Murari Lal Vs. State 9 of MP”, wherein it is held that “Expert opinion on handwriting can form the basis of a conviction or decree, provided the court applies its own scrutiny”.

(xi)The counsel for the defendant also relied on another decision of our

Hon'ble Apex Court reported in “AIR 1967 SC 1326” in between “Fakruddin Vs.

State of MP”, wherein it is held that “when an expert opinion is supported by reasons and the reasons are sound, the court should accept it. He further relied on another decision of our Hon'ble Apex Court reported in “(2011) 12

SCC 220” in between “Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami”, wherein it is held that “in suits seeking recovery of large amounts the Court must satisfy itself about the genuineness of the transaction including the source of funds, the circumstances of execution and the conduct of parties”. The above mentioned decisions relied by the counsel for the defendant are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

(xii)In “AIR 1961 SC 1316” in between “Kundan Lal Rallaram Vs. Custodian,

Evacue Property, Bombay” our Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the burden of proof in respect of negotiable instruments, wherein it was held that “Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as that until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made, (a) that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. This section lays down a special rule of evidence applicable to negotiable instruments. The presumption is one of law and thereunder a court shall presume inter alia, that the negotiable instrument or the endorsement was made or endorsed for consideration. In effect it throws the burden of proof of failure of consideration on the maker of the note or the endorser, as the case may be. The question is, how the burden can be discharged? The rules of evidence pertaining to burden of proof are embodied in Chapter VII of the

Evidence Act. The phrase burden of proof has two meanings one the burden 10 of proof as a matter of law and pleading and the other the burden of establishing a case; the former is fixed as a question of law on the basis of the pleadings and is unchanged during the entire trial whereas the latter is not constant but shifts as soon as a party adduces sufficient evidence to raise a presumption in his favour. The evidence required to shift the burden need not necessarily be direct evidence, i.e., oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by opposite party; it may compromise circumstantial evidence or presumptions of law or fact. To illustrate how this doctrine works in practice, we may take a suit on a promissory note. Under S.101 of the

Evidence Act, Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. Therefore, the burden initially rests on the plaintiff who has to prove that the promissory note was executed by the defendant. As soon as the execution of the promissory note is proved the rule of presumption laid down in S.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act helps him to shift the burden to the other side. The burden of proof as a question of law rests, therefore, on the plaintiff; but as soon as the execution is proved, S.118 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act imposes a duty on the Court to raise a presumption in his favour that the said instrument was made for consideration.

This presumption shifts the burden of proof in the second sense, that is, the burden of establishing a case shifts to the defendant. The defendant may adduce direct evidence to prove that the promissory note was not supported by consideration, and if he adduced acceptable evidence, the burden again shifts to the plaintiff, and so on. The defendant may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and, if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again to the plaintiff. He may also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance those mentioned in Section 114 and other sections of the Evidence Act”.

11

(xiii)Hence, from the above legal position, it is clear that after the examination of P.W1 and P.W.2 and marking of Ex.A1 promissory note on behalf of the plaintiff, the statutory presumption is in favour of the plaintiff and the burden shifted to the defendant and that the defendant by examining herself as D.W.1 and also by examining the handwriting expert as D.W.2 and the documentary evidence under Ex.C1 Expert Opinion has proved that the suit promissory note Ex.A1 is a forged one. Hence, the defendant has established her contention that Ex.A1 promissory note is a forged and fabricated one not supported by consideration. Hence, it is held that Ex.A1 promissory note is not true and valid and it is not binding on the defendant.

Accordingly, this issue is answered negatively against the plaintiff.

12. Issue No.2:-

(i)In view of the conclusions arrived by this court under Issue No.1, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant and the suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

In the result the suit is dismissed without costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-G.Swathi

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

NELLORE.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1: Y.Srinivasulu P.W.2: Uppu Kiran

For Defendant: D.W.1: Akkisetty Kamakshi Devi D.W.2: G.V.H.V. Prasad 12

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1:Original suit promissory note, dt.06-11-2019.

For Defendant: Ex.B1:Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds under registered document bearing No.4823/2021, dt.29-04-2021. Ex.B2:Statement of encumbrance on property (9 pages) issued by the SRO, Nellore.

For Court : Ex.C1:Original report issued by Truth Labs bearing file No.TLH/QD/225/2025, dt.01-08-2022 consisting seven sheets.

Sd/- G.Swathi

PCJ (JD), NELLORE.

APNE0A0025132018 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

NELLORE :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

Present : Smt. G.Swathi,

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nellore.

Wednesday, this the 29 th day of April, 2026

Original Suit No.627 of 2018

Between:

M/s. Canara Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking companies, 1970, AK Nagar branch, Vedayapalem, Nellore, Rep. By its Chief Manager Sri.Gaurav Kumar Gupta, S/o Bishnu Prasad Gupta, aged 48 years, Nellore town, SPSR

... Plaintiff

Nellore District.

And

1. M/s Vilasha Dental Hospital, Rep. By its proprietor O.M. Mahesha, W/o Ravindranath Reddy, aged 48 years, residing at D.No.16-5-41, Sankaragraharam, Nellore.

2. M.Ravindranath Reddy, S/o late Ramana Reddy, aged 58 years, residing at D.No.16-5-41,

Sankaragraharam, Nellore. ... Defendants

This suit is coming on 21-04-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. D.Subhashini, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri. Allabakshu,

Advocate for defendants 1 and 2, upon hearing both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.11,55,595/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs

Fifty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Five only) being the principal and interest due on a loan availed by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff bank repayable with subsequent interest and for costs.

2.The averments mentioned in the plaint, in brief, are that the 1st defendant dental hospital represented by its Proprietor approached the plaintiff 2 bank for obtaining SMSE loan for the purpose of establishing new dental clinic and she submitted a loan application to the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to the 1st defendant under loan

A/c.No.3507910001278 on 14.09.2015 and that the 1st defendant executed necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the same with interest at 11% per annum and the rate of interest is subject to variation as per the norms of RBI and the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor to the said loan availed by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff bank and executed guarantee agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank. After making last payment by the 1st defendant on 06.10.2016, the defendants were made default in repayment of the said loan amount to the plaintiff bank. There is an amount of

Rs.11,55,595/- is due from the 1st defendant to the plaintiff bank under the suit loan account as on 30.09.2018 as per the account statement filed by the plaintiff bank. In spite of repeated demands, personal contacts and communications by the plaintiff bank, the defendants were failed to repay the loan amount. Hence, the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the suit.

3.The defendants were remained exparte and after adducing plaintiff side exparte evidence, this court passed exparte decree and judgment on 30.04.2019 and later the defendants filed petition in I.A.No.61/2023 under

Order IX, Rule 13 CPC along with the written statement of defendants and this court allowed the petition by setting aside the exparte decree and judgment passed against the defendants.

4.The brief averments of the written statement are that defendant no.1 represented by its proprietor has availed loan under SYND Doctor's scheme and at the time of availing the loan, the bank authorities obtained the signatures of defendant no.1 in all the pages of loan documents which are printed forms having most of the columns filled by the bank authorities as per their whims and fancies. The bank authorities took the signatures of the borrower as well as the surety. The bank authorities orally said that interest of 3 7.5% will be charged in respect of the said loan amount, but the bank authorities claimed 11.5% interest which is against the word given by the bank authorities. As per the loan agreement, the bank authorities issued the loan on 14.09.2015, but the suit is filed after 3 years and as such the suit is barred by limitation. The account statement filed by the plaintiff bank shows that the first defendant has paid several part payments and the payments deducted from the loan amount are not correct and the account statement does not contain the signatures of the defendants. The interest calculated is also not correct and the plaintiff bank added several penalties and compound interest. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.After filing written statement by the defendants, the matter was posted for compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under Section 89 of

Code of Civil Procedure. But, the respective counsel reported there is no likelihood of compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under

Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the matter was posted for settlement of issues.

6.In view of the rival contentions of both the parties the following issues are settled for trail:

(i) Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit amount of Rs.11,55,595/- from the defendants with further interest of 11% per annum as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief ?

7.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff bank, Chief Manager of the plaintiff bank entered the witness box and examined as P.W.1 and

Ex.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, the proprietor of defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and also examined D.W.2 as other witness, and no documents were marked on their behalf.

4

8.Heard both the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendants. The counsel for the defendant filed written arguments apart from submitting oral arguments.

9.The counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendants made default in payment of the amount due under the loan account of the 1st defendant maintained by the plaintiff bank and as such the suit is liable to be decreed as prayed for.

10.The counsel for the defendants contended that the defendants paid loan installment amounts regularly to the plaintiff bank and without showing all the amounts paid by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff bank and by filing false account statement, this suit was filed by the plaintiff bank and the suit is barred by limitation and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

Issue No.1:

11.This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of balance loan amount availed by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff bank. In support of the contention of the plaintiff bank the Chief Manager of the plaintiff bank who is given authorization vide Ex.A6 is examined as P.W.1 by filing his chief examination affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint that the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff bank and based on the application made by the 1st defendant vide

Ex.A1, the plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.10,00,000/- on 14.09.2015 to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant executed Ex.A2 composite

Hypothecation agreement, Ex.A5 Confirmation of Delivery of machinery/vehicles and all other necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank by agreeing to repay the loan with interest @ 11% per annum subject to variation from time to time as per RBI guidelines. The 2nd defendant stood as guarantor to the loan availed by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff bank and executed Ex.A3 guarantee agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank. Later the defendants made default in repayment of the loan after making payment of 5 some installments and the defendants did not choose to pay the balance loan amount even after the repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank. The 1st defendant is indebted to the plaintiff bank to a tune of Rs.11,55,595/- as on 30.09.2018 as per Ex.A4 bank account statement. Hence, the suit.

12.On the other hand, in support of the contention of the defendants, the proprietor of 1st defendant is examined as D.W.1 by way of filing her chief examination affidavit and contented that the plaintiff bank had taken the signatures of defendants in all the pages in loan documents which are printed forms and some other papers and most of the columns are filled by the bank authorities as per their wish illegally. The plaintiff bank authorities orally told the defendants to pay 7.5% interest only. But the bank claimed interest of 11% per annum which is against the word given by the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff had taken signatures of the defendants without filling all the columns of the documents and not properly explaining about the loan transaction. After sanctioning the loan, the plaintiff bank filled all the documents as per their wish. The suit is barred by limitation, as the same is filed after 3 years of issuance of loan. There is no mention in the plaint about the payments made by the 1st defendant and the plaintiff has not filed any receipt to show that the 1st defendant made last payment on 10.02.2016 and the plaintiff bank falsely created the bank statement to save the limitation and claimed huge interest, violating RBI norms.

13.As could be seen from the cross examination of D.W.1, she admitted that she obtained a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank to start dental clinic. She further admitted that she is the proprietor of first defendant dental hospital which was run by her and the said hospital is closed at present. She stated that she obtained the loan from the plaintiff bank in the year 2015, which is now merged with Cananra Bank. D.W.1 categorically admitted in her cross-examination that she made her signatures in loan application, loan agreement and other documents and she further admitted that she did not pay 6 the installment amounts. She also admitted that as she failed to pay the loan installment amounts to the plaintiff bank, her loan account became NPA (Non-

Performing asset) in the year 2016 with loan due amount of Rs.11,55,595/-.

14.Further D.W.2 who is examined as other witness on behalf of the defendants in his cross examination stated that the defendants failed to pay loan installment amounts to the plaintiff bank and he stated that he does not know that the loan account of the first defendant was declared as NPA and as such the suit was filed against the defendants. Hence, D.W.2 also admitted availing loan by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff bank and he stated that he does not know whether the loan account of the 1st defendant maintained by the plaintiff bank became NPA or not. The above mentioned statements made by

D.W.2 show that he has no knowledge of the status of loan account of the 1st defendant with the plaintiff bank and as such the evidence of D.W.2 finds no support to the contention of the defendants.

15.Hence, D.W.1 categorically admitted availing of the loan of

Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank as proprietor of defendant no.1 firm and she also admitted that as she made default of payment of loan installments, the suit loan account was declared as NPA. Though it is mentioned in the written statement and chief examination affidavit of D.W.1 that at the time of availing the loan the plaintiff bank promised her to charge interest of 7.5% per annum at a constant rate, the defendants were failed to prove the same.

Further, on one hand, the defendants are admitting the payment of some of the loan installments by them to the plaintiff bank, but on other hand they are stating that they failed to pay the loan installment amounts as the plaintiff bank failed to inform them after the commencement of payment. Further, except contending that the plaintiff's bank agreed to adjust the subsidy of 30% issued by the Government under MSME scheme towards the loan amount of the 1st defendant, the defendants were failed to prove the adjustment said to be 7 agreed by the plaintiff bank with the defendants, by adducing any valid evidence.

16.The counsel for the defendants contended that the suit is barred by limitation. The loan was sanctioned to the first defendant in the year 2015, whereas the suit is filed in the year 2018 after the expiry of 3 years from the date of issuance of loan, and as such the suit is barred by limitation. As could be seen from Ex.A4 account statement filed by the plaintiff's bank, the defendant made last payment on 06.10.2016 and the suit is filed within the period of limitation of 3 years from that date. Further, D.W.1 in her cross examination clearly admitted that as she failed to pay the loan installment amounts her loan account became NPA in the year 2016. Hence, the suit is filed within the period of limitation and the said contention of the counsel for the defendants is not valid and need not be considered. Further DW1 and the second defendant both are educated persons and while signing the documents it is their responsibility to check the recitals of the documents on which they are going to sign. Further D.W.1 in her cross examination clearly admitted availing of the loan from the plaintiff bank by executing documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. Hence, the another contention of the defendants that the documents executed by the defendants are not valid as the plaintiff bank obtained their signatures on printed pro-formas by leaving the blanks unfilled, is also not correct.

17.As could be seen from the cross examination of P.W.1, he clearly stated that even though the total amount paid by the 1st defendant and the number of installments paid under the suit loan transaction are not specifically mentioned in the pleadings of the plaint, the same were reflected in Ex.A4 account statement. P.W.1 categorically denied the suggestion made by the counsel for the defendants that in case of default of loan amount by the defendants, the bank has to recover the same directly from the Government. Further, not mentioning the date of NPA in the plaint is not material to the result of the suit 8 as the loan account will become NPA after 3 months of last payment. Further the another contention of the counsel for the defendants that the National

Credit Guarantee Fund Company is the necessary party to the suit, is also not correct and when the first defendant borrowed the loan from the plaintiff bank, it is the liability of the first defendant to repay the said loan amount and the liability of the second defendant who stood as guarantor to the said loan, is co- extensive with that of the 1st defendant and National Credit Guarantee Fund

Company is noway related to the repayment of the loan amount by the defendants and the said contention of the counsel for the defendants is baseless.

18.Further, P.W.1 in his cross examination categorically stated that it is not mandatory to obtain collateral security for the issuance of loan under MSME scheme, but it is at the discretion of the sanctioning authority i.e. the bank to obtain collateral security for the issuance of MSME loan. Hence, the said contention of the counsel for the defendants that as collateral security was obtained to the suit loan transaction, the suit is not maintainable, is not valid.

Further, P.W.1 in his cross examination denied the suggestion made by the counsel for the defendants that Ex.A4 account statement is falsely created by the plaintiff bank in order to save limitation and he further denied the suggestion made by the counsel for the defendants that the amount shown in

Ex.A4 account statement is falsely claimed not showing the correct payments made by the 1st defendant. P.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that there are some blanks left unfilled in the suit documents. But, the defendants were failed to prove that any columns of the suit documents were left unfilled as to material particulars. P.W.1 also denied the suggestion made by the counsel for the defendants that at the time of sanctioning the loan the plaintiff bank officials told the defendants to pay interest of 7.5% per annum only and he further denied that the plaintiff bank promised to give 30% discount on the loan amount. Except contending that the plaintiff bank agreed to give 30% discount 9 on loan amount and to charge 7.5% interest only, the defendants were failed to prove the same by adducing any valid evidence.

19.Hence, there is no dispute as to borrowing of the loan by the 1st defendant and default of the repayment of the said loan by the defendants as

D.W.1 admitted the said facts during her cross examination. The plaintiff bank by examining it’s Manager as P.W.1 along with the Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 proved that the 1st defendant represented by D.W.1 availed loan from the plaintiff bank for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and subsequently the defendants were failed to pay the loan amount due as per the terms and the 1st defendant has the loan amount debt due for an amount of Rs.11,55,595/- as on 30.09.2018 as per

Ex.A4 bank account statement to the plaintiff bank, and as such it is held that the defendants failed to pay the loan amount to the plaintiff bank, and the plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit amount from the defendants as prayed for.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants.

Issue No.2:

20.In view of the foregoing discussion and findings held under issue no.1, it is held that the plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit amount from the defendants as prayed for.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank and against defendants 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.11,55,595/- (Rupees Eleven

Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Five only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten

Lakhs only).

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- G.Swathi

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

NELLORE.

10

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1: Gaurav Kumar Gupta

For Defendant: D.W.1:Orimpati Mastanamma Mahesha D.W.2:R.Lakshmi Narasa Reddy

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1:Loan application for credit facilities to Micro and Small Enterprises, dt.14.09.2015.

Ex.A2:Composite Hypothecation agreement executed by defendant in favour of Plaintiff bank, dt.14.09.2015.

Ex.A3:Guarantee agreement executed by the defendants dt.14.09.2015.

Ex.A4:Statement of account pertaining to suit transaction.

Ex.A5:Confirmation of Delivery of Machinery/Vehicles, dt.14-09-2015.

Ex.A6:Attested copy of Authorization giving the Chief Manager, Sri Gaurav Kumar Gupta, Son of Bishnu Prasad Gupta, Hindu, aged about 48 years, resident of Nellore.

For Defendants: - Nil -

Sd/- G.Swathi

PCJ (JD), NELLORE.

APNE0A0030132023 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

NELLORE :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

Present : Smt. G.Swathi,

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nellore.

Monday, this the 27 th day of April, 2026

Original Suit No.847 of 2023

Between: Sanam Rukmini kumari, W/o Late Jayaramudu, R/o Rama Krishna Nagar, Cuddapah city, Cuddapah District.

... Plaintiff

And

K.Srinivasulu, S/o Lokanadham, Working at Govt Coeducational Degree College, Nagiri, Chitoor

District.... Defendant

This suit is coming on 13-04-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. M.Siva Parvathi, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Smt. M.Lakshmi, Advocate for defendant, upon hearing both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,75,066/- (Rupees One Lakh

Seventy Five Thousand and Sixty Six only) being the principal and interest due by the defendant to the plaintiff on the basis of the suit promissory note, dt.07.11.2021 for Rs.1,30,000/- said to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff along with subsequent interest and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- from the plaintiff on 07.11.2021 and executed a promissory note in her favour on the even date agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to her or 2 to her order on demand. Later inspite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the suit promissory note due amount and he has been postponing to the pay the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 04.04.2023 demanding him to pay the amount due under the suit promissory note, but after receiving the said notice, the defendant kept silent and did not choose to pay the amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint apart from raising several other contentions.

4.The brief averments of the written statement are that the defendant previously worked as attender in V. R. Law College, Nellore and at that time the defendant got acquaintance with the plaintiff’s sister, who is the advocate to the plaintiff in this suit. Gradually intimacy developed between defendant and plaintiff’s sister. The wife of the defendant was suffering with medical disorders and the defendant in need of very much money approached the sister of the plaintiff and requested her to arrange the loan amount of Rs.30,000/- for the medical expenses of defendant's wife and the plaintiff's sister agreed to give the loan with the condition that the defendant ought to have given two empty promissory notes with the signatures on revenue stamps and the defendant questioned about the signatures on two promissory notes and the plaintiff's sister replied that they are for security purpose and also asked to fill the promissory notes in the name of the plaintiff for which the defendant agreed. The defendant paid the said amount to the plaintiff immediately within one year with interest of 24% per annum and the plaintiff’s sister returned one promissory note and informed 3 that another promissory note was clubbed with other promissory notes which were kept in bank locker and will be handed over the same soon and the defendant believed the words of plaintiff’s sister and kept silent. Later the plaintiff’s sister demanded the defendant to pay 48% interest and stated that after payment of the said interest only, she will return the promissory note to the defendant, for which the defendant expressed the inability to pay such a higher rate of interest and exchange of words took place in between them. As such the plaintiff’s sister filled up the empty printed promissory note for Rs.13,00,000/- and strikeout one zero and likewise interest was altered as 24% per annum and likewise letter ‘3’ noted in the Rupees column, three different strikes in three different places which clearly shows that the suit promissory note is a fabricated one and no consideration was passed to the defendant from the plaintiff and the same is filled up by the plaintiff's sister to harass the defendant who has not paid the high rate of interest to her. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.After filing written statement by the defendant, the matter was posted for compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under Section 89 of

Code of Civil Procedure. But, the respective counsel reported there is no likelihood of compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under

Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the matter was posted for settlement of issues.

6.In view of the rival contentions of both the parties the following issues are settled for trail:

(i) Whether the suit promissory note, dt.07.11.2021 is not supported by consideration ?

(ii) Whether the defendant discharged the amount due under the promissory note, dt.07.11.2021 as pleaded by him ?

4

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for ?

(iv) To what relief ?

7.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff entered the witness box and examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked. On behalf of the defendant, defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

8.Heard both the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant.

9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that from the evidence of

P.W.1 along with the evidence of P.W.2 and the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant borrowed amount from her under Ex.A1 promissory note and later the defendant failed to pay the amount due under the promissory note to the plaintiff even after the repeated demands made by her and hence, prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

10.The counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s sister i.e. the counsel for the plaintiff in the suit obtained two promissory notes in the name of plaintiff at the time of lending an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the defendant and after the payment of the said amount with interest of 24% per annum, the plaintiff’s sister returned only one promissory note to the defendant by keeping the other promissory note with her and as the defendant did not agree to pay high rate of interest as demanded by plaintiff’s sister, by fabricating the said promissory note, plaintiff’s sister got filed this suit through the plaintiff to gain unlawfully and the suit promissory 5 note is not supported by consideration and the same is a fabricated one and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

11.Issue No.1 :-

(i)In substantiation of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1 and deposed through her chief evidence affidavit. The gist is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- from her on 07.11.2021 for his necessities and executed Ex.A1 promissory note on even date agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to her or to her order on demand. The defendant did not choose to pay the debt amount due to her under Ex.A1 promissory note and he has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other. The plaintiff got issued Ex.A3 legal notice to the defendant demanding him to pay the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note, but after receiving the same vide

Ex.A3 postal acknowledgment, the defendant kept silent and not paid the amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

(ii)P.W.2 who is said to be the scribe and attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- from the plaintiff on 07.11.2021 and after receiving the said amount from the plaintiff the defendant made his signature in Ex.A1 promissory note in his presence agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and he acted as attesting witness to the said transaction and he scribed the recitals of Ex.A1 promissory note. The evidence of P.W.2 corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1 as to the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and passing of consideration under the same.

6

(iii)The defendant contended that Ex.A1 suit promissory notes is a fabricated one not supported by consideration. Section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act lays down statutory presumption as to the Negotiable

Instruments. One of such presumption is that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Once, the defendant showed either by direct or circumstantial evidence or by way of other presumption of law or fact that promissory note was not supported by consideration in the manner stated therein, then, the evidentiary burden would shift to the plaintiff by reviving his legal burden to prove that the promissory note was supported by consideration, at that stage the presumption under section 118 of the Act would disappear. Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 were cross examined at length by the counsel for the defendant in such a way reflecting the averments of the written statement, nothing worthy is elicited in support of the contention of the defendant, and the case of the defendant is remained as mere suggestions.

(iv)In support of his contention, the defendant examined himself as

D.W.1 and deposed that while he worked as an attender in V. R. Law

College, Nellore he got acquaintance with the plaintiff’s sister-cum- advocate. In need of money for medical expenses of his wife he requested plaintiff’s sister to arrange an amount of Rs.30,000/-. The plaintiff’s sister arranged the said amount to him and obtained two empty signed promissory notes in the name of the plaintiff towards security purpose. The defendant paid the said amount to the plaintiff within one year with interest of 24% per annum, but the plaintiff’s sister returned one promissory note and kept the other promissory note in her custody by stating that she will return the same 7 later as the same was kept in bank locker. Later without returning the said promissory note to the defendant, the plaintiff’s sister demanded the defendant to pay 48% interest. The defendant expressed his inability to pay such a higher rate of interest and as such exchange of words took place in between them. As a result the plaintiff’s sister got filed this suit against the defendant by fabricating the empty signed promissory note given by the defendant towards security.

(v)The counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant created the concocted story of fabrication of Ex.A1 promissory note given by him towards security for the amount of Rs.30,000/- borrowed by him from plaintiff’s sister, is only to evade the payment of the amount due under the suit promissory note to the plaintiff and he has failed to prove his contention by adducing any valid evidence. As per the contention of the defendant, when he requested the plaintiff’s sister (Siva Parvathi) to arrange amount for his necessities the plaintiff’s sister obtained two empty signed promissory notes in the name of the plaintiff and gave an amount of Rs.30,000/- to him and later he repaid the said amount to the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s sister returned one promissory note to him and did not return the other promissory note and by fabricating the said promissory note, the plaintiff’s sister got filed this suit through the plaintiff. Whereas, D.W.1 in his cross examination stated that he does not know that the plaintiff is sister of Siva Parvathi and he does not know the plaintiff. Further D.W.1 in his cross examination made contradictory statements that he borrowed the amount form one Venkata

Subbaiah who used to lend amounts for high rate of interest. The said

Venkata Subbaiah is none other than the father-in-law of Siva Parvathi (plaintiff’s sister). D.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that he received the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to him. He stated that he did not 8 give any reply and did not take any action against the plaintiff. If the said contention of the defendant is true, and if really he has not borrowed the amount from the plaintiff, he would have been got issued reply to the said legal notice got issued by the plaintiff or he would have been taken some legal action against her.

(vi)Another important aspect is that D.W.1 made contradictory statement in his cross examination that the plaintiff’s sister has torn the promissory note returned to him. But, there is no mention of the said fact in written statement and chief examination affidavit of D.W.1 that the plaintiff’s sister (Siva Parvathi) has torn the said promissory note. Further, as per the contention of the defendant, there are material alterations in the recitals of

Ex.A1 promissory note, which show that Ex.A1 promissory note is a fabricated one. Whereas, the counsel for the plaintiff contended that at the time of the execution of the Ex.A1 promissory note, the defendant filled the amount column at the top of Ex.A1 promissory note and he mentioned

Rs.13,00,000/- instead of Rs.1,30,000/- and he corrected the same as

Rs.1,30,000/- by striking last “0” (zero) and there is no material alteration as contended by the defendant.

(vii)As could be seen from Ex.A1 promissory note, in the amount column at the top of Ex.A1 promissory note, the amount is corrected as

Rs.1,30,000/- from Rs.13,00,000/- by striking the last zero and in the body of Ex.A1 promissory note, the amount is mentioned in words as “Rupees

One Lakh Thirty Thousand only”. Further, P.W.1 in his cross examination categorically stated that when she asked the defendant as to the said correction in the amount column at the top of Ex.A1 promissory note, the defendant stated to her that as the amount particulars are correctly mentioned in words in the body of the promissory note, the said correction is 9 not material. P.W.2 in his cross examination clearly stated that after filling the amount column at the top of Ex.A1 promissory note, the defendant gave the promissory note to him to fill the other blanks of the promissory note.

Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 categorically stated that there is no correction of rate of interest and clearly stated that Rs.2/- is overwritten and there is no correction from Rs.4/- to Rs.2/-. As stated by P.W.1 and P.W.2, Rs.2/- is over written in interest particulars of Ex.A1 promissory note and there is no alteration or correction of it. As contended by the counsel for the plaintiff, when there is variation in amount written in words and figures, words prevail over numbers. Hence, there is no such material alterations as contended by the defendant. Hence, from afore mentioned facts elicited from the cross examination of D.W.1, it is found that the sole testimony of D.W.1 finds no support to the contention of the defendant and the defendant has failed to prove his contention by adducing any valid evidence.

(viii)Though the defendant contended that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is the outcome of borrowing of Rs.30,000/- from plaintiff’s sister by the defendant and the same is a fabricated one not supported by consideration, he failed to prove the same by adducing any valid evidence either orally or documentary. Mere making such vague statement and bare denial of passing of consideration is not at all sufficient to hold that the defendant discharged the initial onus of proof, by showing the non-existence of the consideration. On perusal of the evidence on record, the defendant has not brought on record, such evidence, to believe that the consideration did not exist or it's non existence was so probable that prudent man shall act upon the plea that it did not exist. Hence, it can be held that Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- and is 10 binding on the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12. Issue No.4:-

(i)In view of the findings under Issue No.1, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is answered positively in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.1,75,066/- (Rupees One

Lakh Seventy Five Thousand and Sixty Six only) and the plaintiff is also entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit to till the date of decree, and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till realization on principal sum of

Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only).

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- G.Swathi

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

NELLORE.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1:S.Rukmini Kumari P.W.2:K.Mahesh

For Defendant: D.W.1:K.Srinivasulu 11

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Original promissory note, dt.07-01-2021 for Rs.1,30,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2:Office copy of legal notice, dt.04-04-2023 issued to the defendant.

E.A3:Served acknowledgment.

For Defendant: - Nil -

Sd/- G.Swathi S

PCJ (JD), NELLORE.