1
APEG140004102023
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ::
RAMACHANRAPURAM
PRESENT: - Sri K. Venkateswara Rao
Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Ramachandrapuram
Thursday, this the 9th day of April, 2026
A.S.No.47/2023
Between:-
Karri Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Bulliyya Reddy, age 48 years, Business, R/o.D.No.6-266, Opp.Co-operative Bank, Panchayat Street, Anaparthi, Anaparthi mandal, East Godavari District, Anaparthi JCJC.
… Appellant/ Defendant.
And
Konala Nagamani, W/o.Venkata Reddy, aged 51 years, House wife, R/o.D.No.9-199/6, Ramaseetha Apartments, Anaparthi, Anaparthi mandal, East Godavari District, Anaparthi JCJC.
...Respondent/Plaintiff.
On appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the Junior
Civil Judge’s Court, Anaparthi, dt.17.07.2023 in OS No.66/2019.
O.S.No.66/2019
Between:-
Konala Nagamani.… Plaintiff
And
Karri Satyanarayana Reddy …. Defendant.
This appeal has come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.S.S.S.N.Chalapati Kumar, Advocate for Appellant/ Defendant and of Sri 2
Pilla P.L.R.P.Ramayya and Sri Setti Rammurty, Advocate for Respondent/ Plaintiff and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, judgment and decree of the trial court and other connected papers on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. This is an appeal filed by Appellant/Defendant against the Judgment and decree passed by Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Anaparthi dated 17.07.2023 in OS No.66/2019.
2. The appellant is the Defendant in OS No.66/2019 on the file of Junior
Civil Judge’s Court, Anaparthi. The trial Court decreed the suit on merits after
conducting trail. Hence the Appellant/Defendant preferred this appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience and for better appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial court, to avoid unnecessary repetition and confusion, the parties in this appeal herein after will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the trial court i.e. Plaintiff and
Defendant.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that:
The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.03.2014 from the plaintiff for the purpose of his business by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and executed demand promissory note in her favour on the same date at the residence of plaintiff at Anaparthi village.
Thereafter on 10.03.2016, the defendant paid Rs.48,000/- towards interest by endorsing the same on the back side of promissory note. Again the defendant for the purpose of his business borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 11.04.2014 by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and executed demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same date. Thereafter on 11.04.2016, the defendant paid Rs.1,44,000/- towards interest by endorsing the same on the back side of promissory note.
Further the defendant for the purpose of his business borrowed an amount of 3
Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.06.2014 by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and executed demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same date. Thereafter on 13.06.2016, the defendant paid Rs.48,000/- towards interest by endorsing the same on the back side of promissory note. All the promissory notes with endorsements transactions took place in the presence of attestors and the defendant himself scribed all the promissory notes so also endorsements. Thereafter the defendant failed to repay the same inspite of repeated demands, as such the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 12.02.2019 to the defendant. Having received the said notice, the defendant did not pay any amount due under three promissory notes and kept quiet. Thereafter the plaintiff got issued rejoinder notice on 25.02.2019 to the defendant stating that there is some typographical mistake occurred as Konala Venkata Reddy instead of plaintiff.
Hence, she filed the present suit.
5. After receipt of summons, the defendant filed written statement. He denied the material averments mentioned in the plaint. He stated that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any time and never executed promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. He further stated that he does not know the attestors even the plaintiff has no facial acquaintance with them. He further stated that the mother of plaintiff namely Kovvuri Chantamma is none other than his close relative. He further stated that himself, the mother of plaintiff, late Karri Surayamma, her son namely Karri Venkata Reddy, Sathi
Venkta Lakshmi and Mallidi Leelavathi are having joint property i.e., Satya
Gowri Theater and they jointly enjoyed the said property. Subsequently one
Mallidi Rama Reddy and others filed O.S.No.16/2017 for declaration and permanent injunction against aforesaid persons on the file of V Additional
District Court, Rajahmundry and the said suit was dismissed. On that they preferred Appeal Suit No.500/2014 before Hon’ble High Court. As he expressed his inability to spend amount in Court expenses, the mother of plaintiff promised that she will bear his expenses in Court affairs and also 4 stated that after selling Satya Gowri Theater, she will collect her amount from his share. By that time the said Kovvuri Chantamma obtained promissory notes in different dates from him. After several years, the mother of plaintiff again obtained three promissory notes in favour of co- sister-in-law of plaintiff namely Konala Nagamani in different dates and also obtained promissory notes in the name of her husband and her son, her grandson and two promissory notes were obtained in the name of another for security purpose.
As such, the said promissory notes are time barred promissory notes. Later the mother of plaintiff proceeded with said appeal. He further stated that the said Chantamma made a proposal to sell away the Satya Gowri Theater to third parties, for which he stated that till the disposal of said appeal, there is no possibility to sell away the Satya Gowri Theater. On that said Chantamma warned him to see his end. Thereafter she bore grudge against him and she along with her henchmen forged the promissory notes and filed the present suit based on endorsements to gain wrongfully. He further stated that the signatures on the three promissory note and its endorsements are not belonging to him and that they are forged documents. He further stated that he is ready to send the suit promissory notes for comparison to the expert if necessary. He further stated that the plaintiff is the co- daughter-in-law of one
Konala Aruna who is the daughter of Kovvuri Chantamma. As such they supported the said Chantamma. He further stated that the plaintiff and attestors might have forged and fabricated the promissory notes to cause wrongful loss to him. He finally prayed to dismiss the suit.
6.On the strength of rival contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid supported by consideration and binding on the defendant?
2. Whether the suit promissory notes are forged, created and
fabricated documents for the purpose of this suit?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?
5
4. To What relief?
7. In the trial court, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked
Exs.A1 to A10. The plaintiff produced the first attestor as PW.2. On the other hand, the defendant himself examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.
8. After appreciation of the above referred oral and documentary evidence, the trial court decreed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the above said
Judgment and decree, the Appellant/Defendant preferred the present appeal questioning the correctness, legality, validity and maintainability of the same on the following grounds:-
1. The decree and Judgment of trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the suit.
2. The trial court ought not to have decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
3. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of both parties.
4. The trial court failed to see the evidence in respect of admitted facts of plaintiff that how she lent amount to the defendant and simply made findings by believing the version of plaintiff though there is no corroboration between the evidence of plaintiff and her witness.
5. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence with regard to execution of suit promissory notes and passing of consideration.
6. The trial court ought not have given presumption in favour of plaintiff U/Sec.118 Negotiable Instrument Act.
7. The trial Court failed to appreciate the defence taken by the defendant.
8. The trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff is not having lending capacity as on the date of execution of promissory notes.
9. The trial Court grossly erred to observe the defence taken by defendant and erroneously decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
For the above grounds the appellant finally prayed to allow the appeal.
6 9. This court issued notice to the respondent/plaintiff and he engaged counsel.
10. Heard arguments of both sides.
a)The learned counsel for appellant/ defendant argued that the trial
Court failed to appreciate the evidence of both parties in proper manner. He further argued that there is no evidence produced by the plaintiff to establish her financial capacity. He further argued that when the defendant denied the execution of promissory notes, endorsements and passing of consideration, the burden lies on the plaintiff only to prove it. He further argued that the mother of co-sister of plaintiff by name Kovvuri Chantamma is behind back the plaintiff in filing the present suit due to disputes between herself and defendant. He argued that the trial court failed to consider all those aspects and decreed the suit erroneously. He finally prayed to allow the appeal.
b). The learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff argued that the defendant has taken the plea of forgery and whereas the plaintiff filed Exs.A1,
A3 and A5 original promissory notes to prove that the defendant borrowed amounts from the plaintiff. Further the plaintiff also filed Exs.A2, A4 and A6 endorsements which categorically show that the defendant made part payment endorsements with his own handwriting. He further argued that the plaintiff filed the suit after issuance of Ex.A7 legal notice. He further argued that the plaintiff produced PW.2 who is the first attestor of suit promissory notes to prove the execution and passing of consideration to the defendant. He further argued that the defendant admitted his signature on Exs.A1, A3 and A5 original promissory notes, but he denied his signatures on Exs.A2, A4 and A6 endorsements. When the plaintiff filed Exs.A1 to A6 and produced PW.2 who is one of the attestor, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit. But the defendant failed to take any steps to send Exs.A2, A4 and A6 endorsements to compare his signatures if really the same are not belonging to him. He further argued 7 that the defendant stated that as he is unable to pay expert fee, he could not able to send the said documents for comparison to the expert. But it is categorically elicited through the cross examination of DW.1 that himself and others leased out the Satyagowri theatre to one Tadi Veera Raghava Reddy in the year 2014 and the said rent amount was received by them equally basing on their tenure of six month. Further it is elicited through the cross examination of DW.1 that his wife by name Jyothi Nagendra Lakshmi mortgaged property in favour of one Venkata Krishna Reddy of Gollalamamidada village and said debt was discharged after filing suit against her. It shows the financial capacity of defendant, but he has taken false plea to escape from her liability. He further argued that the defendant never stated in his written statement that he put his thumb marks also while giving empty signed promissory notes to the mother of plaintiff. He further argued that the defendant has taken false defence intentionally and that the trial Court discussed all those facts and decreed the suit rightly. He finally prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. Perused the pleadings, issues, oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties and also perused the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
12.Now the points for determination are:
1) Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid and supported by consideration?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?
3) Whether the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court
is factually and legally sustainable or not ?
4)To what relief?
POINT No.1 :
8
Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid and supported by
consideration?
13. When the respondent/ plaintiff approached the trial Court by filing suit based on Exs.A1, A3 and A5 original promissory notes and Exs.A2, A4 and A6 endorsements, the initial burden lies upon the plaintiff only to prove her case.
Further being first Appellant court, it is the duty of this Court to appreciate the facts and evidence also since it is also fact finding court.
14. The plaintiff testified herself as PW.1 by filing her chief affidavit and reiterated the contents of the plaint. She stated that the defendant borrowed total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-) from her on 10.03.2014, 11.04.2014 and 13.06.2014 respectively by executing
Exs.A1, A3 and A5 promissory notes respectively by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and executed all promissory notes with his own handwriting in the presence of PW.2 and in the presence of second attestor Kovvuri Nooka Reddy. She further stated that thereafter the defendant made some part payments i.e., Rs.48,000/- on 10.03.2016,
Rs.1,44,000/- on 11.04.2016 and Rs.48,000/- on 13.06.2016 under Exs.A2, A4 and A6 respectively and endorsed the same with his own handwriting. She further stated that thereafter the defendant failed to repay the said amount inspite of several demands and as such she got issued Ex.A7 legal notice with a demand to repay the said debt. The defendant received the Ex.A7 notice under Ex.A8 acknowledgment, but he failed to repay any amount. She further stated that she got issued Ex.A9 rejoinder notice on 25.02.2019 to the defendant as some typographical mistake was occurred in Ex.A7 legal notice.
The defendant received Ex.A9 rejoinder notice under Ex.A10, but he failed to repay any amount. As such she filed the present suit. The plaintiff produced
PW.2 also, who is the first attestor. PW.2 stated that the defendant borrowed total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-) from the plaintiff on 10.03.2014, 11.04.2014 and 13.06.2014 respectively by 9 executing Exs.A1, A3 and A5 promissory notes respectively in favour of the plaintiff with his own handwriting in his presence and also in the presence of
Padala Venkata Reddy at the house of plaintiff at Anaparthi village. He further stated that thereafter the defendant made some part payments i.e.,
Rs.48,000/- on 10.03.2016, Rs.1,44,000/- on 11.04.2016 and Rs.48,000/- on 13.06.2016 under Exs.A2, A4 and A6 respectively. He further stated that the defendant himself scribed the same with his own handwriting in his presence.
He further stated that he signed as first attestor in all those promissory notes and on part payment endorsements.
15. After completion of evidence of plaintiff, the defendant filed his examination-in-chief affidavit as DW1, he denied the execution of promissory notes and receipt of consideration. He stated that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and that he has no necessity to borrow such amount from the plaintiff.
He further stated that prior to filing of this suit, there is a dispute between the partners of Satyagowry theater in which himself and one Kovvuri Chantamma who is mother of plaintiff are co-partners and the remaining partners are Karri
Venkata Reddy, Sathi Venkta Lakshmi and Mallidi Leelavathi are having joint property in it. He further stated that one Mallidi Rama Reddy and others filed
O.S.No.16/2017 for declaration and permanent injunction against aforesaid
persons on the file of V Additional District Court, Rajahmundry and the said suit was dismissed on merits. On that they preferred Appeal Suit No.500/2014
before Hon’ble High Court. As he expressed his inability to meet legal
expenses, the said Kovvuri Chantamma promised to bear his expenses in
Court affairs stating that after selling Satya Gowri Theater, she will collect her amount from his share. By that time the said Kovvuri Chantamma obtained promissory notes in different names such as in her name (O.S.No.361/2019), in the name of her daughter by name Konala Aruna (O.S.No.66/2019), in the name of son of plaintiff Kona Manideep Srikanth Reddy (O.S.No.93/2021), in 10 the name of co-sister by name Konala Nagamani i.e., the plaintiff herein (O.S.No.66/2019), but he never borrowed any amount from them. He further stated that by believing the said Kovvuri Chantamma, he executed above promissory notes, but he has not made any endorsements on them. He further stated that thereafter the said Chantamma proceeded with said appeal.
He further stated that while the said appeal is pending before Hon’ble High
Court, the said Chantamma made a proposal to sell away the Satya Gowri
Theater to third parties, for which he stated that till the disposal of said appeal, there is no possibility to sell away the Satya Gowri Theater. On that said
Chantamma gave warning that she will see his end. Thereafter she bore grudge against him and filed the present suit through the plaintiff to gain wrongfully by using forged promissory notes so also endorsements. He further stated that there is overwriting regarding amount mentioned in words column by striking off the word ‘రెం�డు , if really he corrected the said word, he might’ have written another promissory note. He further stated that he never put date at his signature, but to cover up their latches the plaintiff implicated the dates after his signature. As such the dates on promissory notes and date on endorsements are forged by the plaintiff to save the limitation and that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is time barred. He further stated that he never gave any amount to the plaintiff and as such the obtaining of endorsements on the respective dates does not arise. He further stated that the plaintiff is a house wife and she has no capacity to lend such huge amount. The signatures on the suit promissory note do not belong to him. He further stated that he has no other movable and immovable properties in his name. He finally prayed to dismiss the suit.
16. Coming to the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited that one Konala
Aruna is her co-sister and that Kovvuri Chantamma is mother of Konala Aruna.
It is further elicited that the defendant is having own house at Panchayat street of Anaparthi village. It is further elicited that the defendant is having 1/5th 11 share in Satyagowri theatre of Anaparthi village and Chantamma is also having one share. She admitted that said Satyagowri theatre property was in dispute and appeal is pending before Hon'ble High Court. It is elicited that the defendant executed promissory notes at her house after receiving amount from her. It is further elicited that the defendant brought the attestors namely
Tetali Chandrareddy and Padala Venkatareddy. It is further elicited that the defendant himself scribed all three promissory notes. It is further elicited that after two years of Exs.A1, A3 and A5 promissory notes, the defendant made part payments and same were endorsed on the back of said three promissory notes with respective dates. It is elicited that as the defendant promised to repay amount within short time, she did not insist him to put his thumb imprison on remaining promissory notes. It is further elicited that the defendant put his signature as scribe also by mentioning his father’s name and place at
Anaparthi. It is elicited that the first legal notice was sent to the defendant with the name of her husband and subsequently she issued re-joinder notice to the defendant in her name. The learned counsel for defendant gave suggestion to
PW.1 stating that the endorsement signatures were not belonged to the defendant, but witness denied the said suggestion.
17. Coming to the cross examination of PW.2, it is elicited that nearly after two years of execution of promissory notes, part payments were made by the defendant and same were endorsed on said promissory notes. It is further elicited that the defendant himself calculated the interest as on the date of part payments and paid interest only. He deposed that there are three strike offs in three promissory notes, but he is unable to read the correction portion. The learned counsel for defendant gave suggestion to PW.2 stating that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff in his presence at any point of time and never executed promissory notes, but witness denied the said suggestion.
12 18. Coming to the cross examination of DW1, it is elicited that he received pre-suit notice, but he did not give any reply to the plaintiff. It is further elicited that he knows the plaintiff since 35 years. He deposed that he is not having any disputes with the plaintiff. It is elicited that Satyagowri theatre originally belongs to Kovvuri Sattireddy and Gavarayamma, who is his paternal aunt, they both executed registered settlement deed for house property in his favour and in favour of four others dated 09.10.2006 as they are not having children.
It is further elicited that on 19.10.2005 they executed another deed for
Satyagowri theatre and said properties which are in his possession. It is further elicited that they are having disputes with one Kovvuri Chantemma, as such they, five members maintained the property. It is further elicited that with regard to said property, some of his relatives filed civil suit before Hon'ble
District Court, Rajamahendravaram in which judgment is passed in favour of their relatives for which the judgment debtors approached the Hon'ble High
Court and the matter is pending. It is further elicited that he is having permission to maintain Satyagowri theatre and houses, but not having capacity to sell. He admitted that the other four persons gave power to him to appear
before the Court on their behalf so also to maintain the property also on their
behalf. He added that properties are maintained by four others and that he is only attorney on paper on their behalf. He admitted that the said theatre was given to lease in the year 2014 to one Tadi Veera Raghava Reddy. The learned counsel for plaintiff gave suggestion to DW.1 stating that the said Tadi
Veera Raghava Reddy deposited theatre rent in his account. But he added that there is a separate account for the theatre and rent amounts were deposited in said account and that the said rent amount were received by them equally basing on their tenure of six month each. He admitted that the amount given to their counsel for engaging him to protect the suit filed against them is not mentioned in his written statement or in his chief examination affidavit. He further admitted that his sisters filed partition suit against himself and his brothers. It is further elicited that he did not give any reply notice or 13 notice for return of empty signed promissory notes and not filed any criminal cases against them. He deposed that recently Kovvuri Chantemma passed away and he attended her last rituals and performed his role. It is elicited that the signature appearing on promissory note belonged to him, but the writing and thumb imprison are not belonging to him. He deposed that as he is unable to pay expert fee, he could not able to send the said document for comparison to finger print expert. He admitted that his wife by name Jyothi
Nagendra Lakshmi mortgaged property to one Venkata Krishna Reddy of
Gollalamamidada village and said debt was discharged after filing suit against her. He further admitted that the promissory notes were executed by him with his own handwriting, but date was not mentioned by him. DW.1 denied the overwriting at the year of promissory note. The learned counsel for plaintiff gave suggestion to DW.1 stating that he is having habit to evade repayments, but witness denied the said suggestion.
19.In fact, the initial burden always lies on the plaintiff only to prove the execution and passing of consideration to the defendant under Exs.A1, A3 and
A5 promissory notes. The plaintiff filed Exs.A1, A3 and A5 original promissory notes in the trial Court. As per the recitals mentioned in Exs.A1, A3 and A5 original promissory notes, the defendant borrowed total amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-) from the plaintiff on 10.03.2014, 11.04.2014 and 13.06.2014 respectively. Those promissory notes further show that the defendant made some part payments under
Exs.A2, A4 and A6 on 10.03.2016, 11.04.2016 and 13.06.2016 respectively.
Further Ex.A1 promissory note contains the signature as well as thumb impression of executant, but Exs.A3 and A5 promissory notes contain the signature of executant only. Further Exs.A1, A3 and A5 promissory notes and
Exs.A2, A4 and A6 endorsements contain the signatures of two attestors and the scribe also. The plaintiff produced PW.2 stating that he is the first attestor of Exs.A1, A3 and A5 original promissory notes so also Exs.A2, A4 and A6 14 endorsements. There is corroboration between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 about the date, place and amounts borrowed by the defendant since both of them deposed through their chief affidavits that the defendant borrowed total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-) from the plaintiff on 10.03.2014, 11.04.2014 and 13.06.2014 respectively at the house of plaintiff by executing Exs.A1, A3 and A5 promissory notes and after two years of execution of respective promissory notes, the defendant made some part payment on it under Exs.A2, A4 and A6 endorsements.
20.In fact, when the plaintiff filed Exs.A1, A3 and A5 promissory notes and
Exs.A2, A4 and A6 endorsements and also produced PW.2 who is the first attestor, the Court has to draw the presumption under section 118(a) and 118(b) of Negotiable Instrument Act that the date and consideration mentioned in Ex.A1 promissory note are true and correct until the contrary is proved. On the other hand, the plaintiff filed the suit after issuing Ex.A7 legal notice Ex.A9 rejoinder notice and admittedly the defendant received both notices, but he failed to give any reply. Though the non-issuance of reply is not a ground to disbelieve the version of defendant, it can be considered as one of the strong circumstance to believe the case of plaintiff. At least the defendant is not in a position to explain any circumstances under which he failed to issue reply notice if really his version is correct. There is corroboration in the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 regarding date, amount, place and time of execution of Exs.A1,
A3 and A5 original promissory notes and Exs.A2, A4 and A6 endorsements.
As such their evidence is cogent and believable. Further even the learned counsel for defendant also elicited through the cross of PWs.1 and 2 about the date, amount and place of execution of promissory notes by the defendant at the house of plaintiff. As such automatically the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the said presumption to establish that the suit promissory notes and endorsements on the promissory notes are forged by the plaintiff.
15
21.On one hand, the defendant contended that the signatures on the suit promissory notes and endorsements are forged by the plaintiff and on the other hand he admitted his signatures on suit promissory notes. But he denied his signatures on endorsements, the writing and his thumb impression one one promissory note stating that the same are forged one. However the defendant admitted about execution of promissory notes with his own handwriting, but denied the date mentioned on it. The defendant has taken forgery plea also, but he failed to take steps to send the promissory notes and endorsements to the expert for comparison of his signature. Surprisingly, the defendant stated that he has no capacity to send the promissory notes for comparison to the expert as he is unable to pay expert fee. In fact, it is elicited by the learned counsel for plaintiff through the cross of DW.1 regarding financial capacity of defendant that he is having permission to maintain Satyagowri theatre and houses and that there is a separate account for the theatre and the rent amounts were deposited in the said account and that the said rent amount was received by them equally. But the defendant deposed in his evidence that he has no capacity to send the promissory notes for comparison to finger print expert as he is unable to pay expert fee which is meaningless. Further it is also elicited through the cross of DW.1 that his wife by name Jyothi Nagendra
Lakshmi mortgaged property to one Venkata Krishna Reddyof
Gollalamamidada village and said debt was discharged after filing suit against her. It clearly shows that the defendant has financial capacity to send promissory notes to the expert for comparison of his thumb impression and signatures, but he has not taken any steps to send the said documents to the expert for comparison for the reasons best known to him. Further the learned counsel for defendant elicited through the cross examination of PW.1 that the defendant is having own house at Panchayat street of Anaparthi village and that the defendant is having 1/5th share in Satyagowri theatre of Anaparthi village. In fact, no suggestion is given to PW.1 or PW.2 by the learned counsel for defendant stating that the defendant is not having any properties.
16
22.The other contention of defendant is that he has no necessity to borrow any amount from the plaintiff and the suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration. He further stated that he has no other movable and immovable properties in his name, except share in Satyagowri theater. It is elicited through the cross of DW.1 that his wife mortgaged the property in favour of one Venkata Krishna Reddy and after filing of suit against her, they discharged said debt. It shows that the family members of defendant has necessity borrow amount for their needs.
23.The other contention of defendant is that himself, the mother of co-sister of plaintiff by name Kovvuri Chantamma, Karri Surayamma late, her son Karri
Venkata Reddy, Sathi Venkta Lakshmi and Mallidi Leelavathi are having joint property i.e., Satya Gowri Theater. He further contended that one Mallidi
Rama Reddy and others filed O.S.No.16/2017 against them for declaration and permanent injunction and the said suit was dismissed. On that the said
Mallidi Rama Reddy and others preferred Appeal vide AS No.500/2014 before
Hon’ble High Court, but he has no capacity to defend the said appeal. As
such the said Kovvuri Chantamma assured that she will bear his expenses in
Court stating that after selling Satya Gowri Thereafter, she will collect her amount from his share and obtained promissory notes from him on different dates. But in his cross examination it is elicited by the learned counsel for plaintiff that he did not give any reply notice or notice for return of empty signed promissory notes and not filed any criminal cases against them. There is no explanation from him that why he kept quiet without taking any steps against the mother of plaintiff either by way of issuing notice or by way of giving report to the police which falsifies the version of defendant in his written statement and evidence. On the other hand, there is no supporting evidence to say that the said Kovvuri Chantamma obtained empty promissory notes from him on different dates as she assured him that she will bear his expenses in AS
No.500/2014 on the file of Hon’ble High Court as he has no capacity to defend the said appeal. It seems that the defendant had taken such defence only for 17 namesake without any basis stating that the said Kovvuri Chantamma obtained empty promissory notes from him on different dates. The learned counsel for plaintiff contended that the defendant himself scribed all the three promissory notes and endorsements on their back and as such the defendant has not taken steps to send the documents for comparison. The learned counsel for defendant contended that the signatures appearing on three promissory notes belonged to the defendant, but the signatures on endorsements, writing on Exs.A1 to A6 documents are not belonged to the defendant. This Court perused Exs.A1, A3 and A5 promissory notes and
Exs.A2, A4 and A6 endorsements which show that the writings and the signatures of scribe appearing on Exs.A1 to A6 are similar and that the signatures of scribe are tallying with the signature of executant. The said fact makes it true that the defendant himself scribed the said Exs.A1 to A6 documents as he admitted his signature appearing on those documents.
24.Regarding financial capacity of plaintiff, no suggestion is given by the learned counsel for defendant denying the financial capacity of plaintiff during the course of cross examination of PWs.1 and 2. Further in view of recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court held in a case between Georgekutty
Chacko v. M.N. Saji delivered in Civil Appeal No.11309/2025 that in a civil suit for recovery of amount, the person who gave cash obviously would not be having any documentary proof per se. Sometimes there may be an occasion where even for a cash transaction, a receipt is taken, but absence of the same would not negate and disprove the stand that the cash transaction also took place between the parties. It is not uncommon that in money transactions, there is a component of cash also involved and just because a person is not able to prove the transfer through official modes i.e., through any negotiable instrument or bank transaction, would not lead to the conclusion that such amount was not paid through cash. In the present case also though the plaintiff has not produced any other document except Exs.A1 to A6 documents, it is not a ground to disbelieve Exs.A1 to A6 transactions without 18 taking any steps by the defendant to send Exs.A1 to A6 promissory notes to the expert for comparison of his signature. Further there is documentary evidence through Exs.A1 to A6, which is supported by PW.2 who is independent witness regarding execution and passing of consideration to the defendant. Further no suggestion is given by the learned counsel for defendant denying the financial capacity of plaintiff during the course of cross examination of PWs.1 and 2. As such there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for defendant in that aspect also.
25.The other contention of defendant is that there is overwriting in the words column by striking off the word ‘రెం�డు stating that if really he corrected’ the said word, he might have executed another promissory note and as such the suit is not maintainable. The learned counsel for plaintiff contended that the said overwriting was happened in the presence of the plaintiff, the defendant, the attestors and that the defendant himself stricked off the same.
A perusal of Ex.A1 promissory note, it shows that there is striking off the word ‘రెం�డు , but there is no initial put by any party on it. In fact, when there is’ variation between the words and figures regarding any amount, the words will prevail. In the present case, it is specifically mentioned in the words that as a lakh. As such it prevails and the plaintiff also claimed the same. On the other hand, the figures mentioned in the promissory note are also very clear that the amount mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/- and there are no corrections or over writings at relevant columns. Moreover it is elicited from the cross examination of DW.1 that he executed the promissory notes with his own handwriting. It seems that the defendant himself striked of the word ‘రెం�డు in the presence of’ parties to reflect his genuine intention. In these circumstances when the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is coupled with the recitals mentioned under Exs.A1,
A3 and A5 promissory notes which were executed by the defendant with his own handwriting, it seems that their evidence is cogent, trustworthy and believable. On the other hand, there is no evidence from the side of defendant that the co-sister of mother of plaintiff by name Kovvuri Chantamma 19 is behind back of the plaintiff in filing the present suit by utilizing some of promissory notes of the defendant said to have been executed by him to defend the appeal suit. As such this Court feels that the plaintiff amply established that the suit promissory notes are true, valid and supported by consideration. As such, certainly they are binding on the defendant.
Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff.
Point No.2:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the
defendants as prayed for?
26.In view of findings given by this court for point No.1, the respondent/ plaintiff amply established that Exs.A1, A3 and A5 promissory notes are true, valid and supported by consideration and further established that Exs.A2, A4 and A6 endorsements are also true and valid. As such, certainly they are binding on the defendant. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of respondent/plaintiff.
Point No.3:-
Whether the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is
factually and legally sustainable or not ?
27. This Court carefully observed the findings given by the trial Court for
Issues No.1 to 4 therein. The trial Court appreciated the evidence of both parties and Exs.A1 to A6 documents in proper way and gave finding stating that the plaintiff proved the execution of Exs.A1 to A6 documents by the defendant and accordingly the suit was decreed on merits. Further, this court also gave finding for Points No.1 and 2 in favour of respondent/plaintiff as discussed supra. In these circumstances, this Court feels that there is no irregularity in the finding given by the trial court and as such the Judgment and 20 decree passed by the trial court does not require any interference by this court.
Accordingly, this point is answered against the Appellant/defendant.
Point No.4:-
To What Relief?
28. In view of findings given by this court for Points Nos. 1 to 3, the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant is liable to be dismissed. But after considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, this court feels that the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.
29.In the result, appeal is dismissed without costs. Consequently the
Judgment and decree passed by Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Anaparthi dated 17.07.2023 in OS No.66/2019 is hereby confirmed.
Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 9 th day of April, 2026.
Sd/- K.Venkateswara Rao,
Civil Jude (Senior Division) Ramachandrapuram
Appendix of Evidence
For Appellant: For Respondent:
– No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side--
Sd/- K.Venkateswara Rao,
Civil Jude (Senior Division) Ramachandrapuram
Copy to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anaparthi.
KALANGIDigitally Signed by
KALANGI VENKATESWARARAO
VENKATESWARARAO
Date: 2026.04.10 17:35:03 +0000