1
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
//FAIR COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present: Smt.U.Madhuri V Addl. Junior Civil Judge Visakhapatnam.
Tuesday, this the 23rd day of April, 2024
O.S.No.645/2018
Between : Singampalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Suri Demudu, aged 43 years, r/at D.No.60-33-83/2, TDP Colony, Malkapuram Post, Visakhapatnam.
... Plaintiff.
And : Singampalli Rambabu, S/o. Somulu, aged 50 years, r/at D.No.71- 31-333/1, Trinadhapuram, Malkapuram Post, Visakhapatnam-11.
... Defendant.
The suit is coming on 19.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence ofSri. G. Trinadha Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri. M. Hari Mehar, Advocate for the Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration and this Court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
1)This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount of Rs.1,71,866/- basing on the promissory note dated 18.10.2015 with subsequent interest @24% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realization on principal amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- and for costs.
2)The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :
It is averred that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Plaintiff on 18.10.2015 for his family expenses and to discharge sundry
Senior Civil Judge,
2
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
debts. Upon receiving consideration, the defendant executed the demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff in the house of plaintiff at Visakhapatnam, agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the amount. However on often demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant issued a cheque in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 05.10.2018 towards part payment, but the said cheque was dishonoured and the same was intimated by the plaintiff to the defendant, but the defendant did not choose to repay the said amount due under the suit promissory note and postpone the same on one pretext or the other. Hence the plaintiff has issued registered notice dated 12.10.2018 and that inspite of receiving the said registered notice, the defendant did not choose to pay any amount. Hence the suit.
3)On the other hand, the defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that even though the defendant and plaintiff are related to each other, they have long time disputes and both are having rivalries till date and in those circumstances, the question of lending of Rs.1,00,000/- by plaintiff to the defendant does not arise. It is also contended that in fact one
Sngampally Polynaidu, S/o. late Mutyalu has lent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant on 13.03.2015 as hand loan for his family needs and the defendant had kept cheque and one partly filled promissory note with the said Singampally
Polynaidu as per his request as security for that amount and that towards the discharge of Rs.1,00,000/- loan amount, the defendant has paid entire due to the
Senior Civil Judge,
3
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
said Singampally Polynaidu on 30.03.2015 and after receiving the same, he said that the promissory note and cheque were misplaced and the same will be returned soon after they are traced out and that the defendant has believed his version and that unfortunately the said Singampally Polynaidu who is plaintiff's friend made a conspiracy with the plaintiff to have wrongful gain, must have filled the blanks keeping plaintiff's name and deposited the cheque in the plaintiff's account and that the said Singampally Polynaidu has joined hand in glove with the plaintiff and got issued notice dated 12.10.2018 which is illegal and not tenable under fact or law and that to that effect the defendant got issued a reply notice dated 24.10.2018 with all facts.
4)It is further contended that as the cheque or promissory note are not drawn in favour of plaintiff and that plaintiff is not payee/drawee or holder in due course of the said instruments, the plaintiff has no right to file any case against the defendant. However, to avoid the risk of Negotiable Instruments Act case, the defendant was forced to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff and that the defendant has informed the same to the plaintiff in his reply notice dated 24.10.2018 and that the plaintiff got issued a reply rejoinder dated 14.11.2018 to the defendant with all false averments simply denying the reply notice contents and to that effect the defendant got issued a reply dated 20.01.2018 to the said reply rejoinder dated 14.11.2018 with all facts.
5)It is further contended that the plaintiff is not holder in due course of either promissory note or the cheque, as such the suit is not maintainable and that the
Senior Civil Judge,
4
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
court fee is not sufficient and that the suit promissory note and cheque were partly filled by one S. Pydapu Naidu on 13.03.2015 but the same was subsequently materially altered by the plaintiff to file the present suit and hence the promissory note and cheque are not valid instruments for the ground of material alteration and that the promissory note and cheque are time barred as such, the plaint is not maintainable, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
6)Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
1) Whether the defendant executed the suit promissory note dated 18.10.2015 in favour of plaintiff undertaking to repay Rs.1,00,000/- @24% p.a. interest on demand or not ?
2) Whether the suit pro-note is true, valid and binding on the defendant or not ?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit relief or not ?
4) To what relief ?
7)During course of trial, the plaintiff is examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the original suit promissory note dated 18.10.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of P.W.1 for Rs.1,00,000/- undertaking to repay with interest @24% p.a. as Ex.A.1 and office copy of legal notice dated 12.10.2018 issued by
P.W.1 to the defendant under Sec.138 of N.I. Act as Ex.A.2 and got examined the 1st attestor and scribe of Ex.A.1 as P.W.2 and P.W.3.
On the other hand, the defendant is examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the receipt dated 19.05.2015 issued by SHO, A. Koduru P.S. on the complaint given by the defendant as Ex.B1, Receipt dated 11.12.2016 issued by
Senior Civil Judge,
5
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
SHO, A. Koduru PS on the complaint given by Singampalli Chinna Somulu i.e. fa- ther of defendant as Ex.B2, legal notice got issued by the plaintiff dated 12.10.2018 as Ex.B.3, Office copy of reply notice dated 24.10.2018 as Ex.B.4,
Reply rejoinder got issued by the plaintiff dated 14.11.2018 as Ex.B.5, office copy of reply to the rejoinder dated 20.11.2018 as Ex.B.6.
8)Heard arguments on both sides.
9)Issue Nos.1 & 2 :-
Since the both the issues are inter-related each other I intend to discuss both the issues together.
10)It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.10.2015 and executed the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., but subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay any amount. However, on often demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant issued a cheque dated 05.10.2018 towards part payment, but the said cheque was dishonoured. Inspite of informing the same to the defendant, the defendant did not turn up to pay the cheque amount and postponing the repayment of debt due under suit promissory note.
11)It is the case of defendant that the plaintiff and the defendant are related to each other and having long time disputes, in those circumstances lending of
Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff does not arise and also contended that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from one Singampally
Senior Civil Judge,
6
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
Polynaidu, S/o. late Mutyalu on 13.03.2015 as hand loan and gave cheque and partly filled promissory note to the said Singampally Polynaidu as security for the said amount. Subsequently, the defendant discharged the said amount of
Rs1,00,000/ to the said Singampally Polynaidu on 30.03.2015, but the said partly filled promissory note and cheque did not return to the defendant stating that they were misplaced and will be returned soon after they are traced out. But, unfortunately the said Singampally Polynaidu who is plaintiff’s friend made a conspiracy with the plaintiff and filled the blanks keeping the plaintiff’s name and deposited the cheque in the plaintiff’s account and filed the present suit to have wrongful gain and that the cheque or promissory note are not drawn in favour of plaintiff and that plaintiff is not payee/drawee or holder in due course of the said instrument, the plaintiff has no right to file any case against the defendant.
12)In support of the case of the defendant, the defendant himself is examined as D.W.1 and got marked the receipt dated 19.05.2015 issued by S.H.O.,
A. Koduru Police Station, Visakhapatnam District on the complaint given by defendant as Ex.B.1 and a receipt dated 11.12.2016 issued by SHO, A. Koduru
Police Station, Visakhapatnam District on the complaint given by Singampalli
China Somulu i.e. father of defendant as Ex.B.2 showing the long-time disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant. During his chief examination, he reiterated the written statement averments and got examined one Singampalli
Pydam Naidu (S.P. Naidu) as D.W.2. According to the case of the defendant, the suit promissory note is partly filled up by D.W.2 on 13.03.2015 by writing the date
Senior Civil Judge,
7
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
as ’08.10.2015’ and also the figure of Rs.1,00,000/- and the figure in words as " ఒక లక రరపయల " and also the interest column in words "రరడ రరపయల"
13)Whereas it is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant executed the suit promissory note in his favour on 18.10.2015, on receipt of consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and the scribe of the said promissory note is P.W.2, but not Singampalli Pydam Naidu (D.W.2) and it is not the partly filled up promissory note as alleged by the defendant, it is fully scribed by P.W.2 on the date of execution and passing of consideration of suit promissory note. In support of his contention, he cross-examined D.W.1. During cross-examination, it was elicited that the grand father and plaintiff's grand father and grand father of one Singampalli Polinaidu are brothers and that he did not mention the said rela- tionship either in his chief examination affidavit, written statement or reply notices.
He did not file any case or police complaint against Polinaidu that he misused the cheque and promissory note and he did not file any case or police complaint against the Polinaidu even after receiving the notice under section 138 of Nego- tiable Instruments Act and that in Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 the name of the plaintiff was not mentioned.
14)From the cross-examination of D.W.1, it can be seen that the said
Singampalli Polinaidu is not only the relative to the plaintiff, but also relative to the defendant. The defendant did not take any action against the said Polinaidu for using the partly filled up promissory note given by defendant to him at the time of lending of Rs.1,00,000/- from the said Singampally Polynaidu. D.W.1 also
Senior Civil Judge,
8
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
admitted in his cross-examination that in their locality so many people are having ‘sur’ name is ‘Singampalli’ in the village.
15)During cross-examination of D.W.2, it is deposed that he has written on the dictation of Polinaidu. He knows about the Polinaidu to some extent. On 13.03.2015 he scribed the promissory note given to Polinaidu and he did not subscribe his signature in the said promissory note. He has written a sale agree- ment to an extent of Ac.2-00 cents by himself and plaintiff and that an extent of
Ac.2-24 cents was got registered in the name of plaintiff. He lodged a complaint against the plaintiff in A. Koduru Police Station, when the plaintiff destructed the cement poles of boundary.
16)It can be seen from the cross-examination of D.W.2 that he partly filled up the promissory note given to Polinaidu on 13.03.2015, but he did not subscribe his signature on the said promissory note as scribe and no explanation was offered as to why he did not choose to put his signature. It can also be seen that some disputes were in between the plaintiff and the D.W.2 also.
17)On the other hand, it can be seen from the case of the plaintiff that one M.
Prasad is the scribe of promissory note and he got examined as P.W.3. During chief examination, he reiterated the case of the plaintiff and in the cross-examina- tion, it was elicited that he is the scribe of Ex.A1. Defendant called him to scribe the promissory note and the writing in Ex.P1 promissory note at date at the top and at his signature and words " ఒక లక రరపయల " are one and the same. The transaction was took place after 5-30 PM and denomination is Rs.500/- currency
Senior Civil Judge,
9
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
notes. Upon perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 and D.W.2, it can be seen that on one hand one Singampalli Pydam Naidu I.e. D.W.2 claiming that he partly filled up the promissory note i.e. amount column “one lakh” and date “08.10.2015” and words of amount “ఒక లక రరపయల" and interest column in words "రరడ రరపయల" at the time of giving promissory note to one Singampalli Polinaidu on 13.03.2015.
On the other hand, P.W.1 deposed that the suit transaction was took place on 18.08.2015 in the presence of he and attestors and scribe and on receiving the consideration on the even date, the defendant executed the suit promissory note which was scribed by him.
18)In the above said circumstances, the defendant filed a petition under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act in I.A.271/22 in O.S.645/18 to send Ex.A.1 to the handwriting expert to know that whether the Ex.A1 is completely filled up by one and the same scribe or not and the said petition is allowed by the Court vide orders dated 03.08.2022 and forwarded the Ex.A.1 to the handwriting expert for comparison of handwriting “ఒక లక రరపయల" and the word "రరడ రరపయల" with the handwriting of other contents in Ex.A.1 vide Dis.No. 414 dated 05.12.2022.
But the handwriting expert returned the same with a request to re transmit along with extensive admitted Telugu writings of the concerned persons around the year 2015 for the purpose of comparison vide Receive No.340 dated 27.12.2022. On the said return, this court directed the petitioner/defendant to furnish extensive writing of concerned person and adjourn the matter from 25.01.2023 to 14.02.2023, from 14.02.,2023 to 10.03.2023, from 10.03.2023 to 23.03.2023,
Senior Civil Judge,
10
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
From 23.03.2023 to 27.03.2023 on conditions. On 27.03.2023 the learned coun- sel for the petitioner/defendant filed a memo vide G.R.No.848 dated 27.03.2023 stating that the defence of the defendant is that the cheque and promissory note are not drawn in favour of plaintiff and that the plaintiff is not the holder in due course of either promissory note or the cheque and that the promissory note and cheque were partly filled up by one S. Pydam Naidu (D.W.2) on 13.03.2015 with future date i.e. 08.10.2015 in respect to the figures at the place meant for amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and date 08.10.2015 and the words at 7th line in respect to the figures of loan amount “ఒక లక రరపయల" and the blanks in respect interest in words "రరడ రరపయల" and all other columns were remained blank on Ex.A.1.
Thus Ex.A.1 is a fabricated one and materially altered and hence in order to prove his case, the defendant filed the above I.A.271/22 to send the Ex.A.1 prom- issory note to the handwriting expert opinion to know that whether Ex.A.1 is com- pletely filled up by one and the same scribe or not and as such the question of want of extensive admitted Telugu writings of the concerned person around the period 2015 does not arise in this case and requesting the court to resend the
Ex.A.1 and other documents which were returned from APSFL to the APSFL again for handwriting expert opinion to examine whether the Ex.A.1 is completely filled up by one and the same scribe or not. This court is directed the petitioner to furnish the extensive Telugu handwriting of the concerned person as required by the expert, but the petitioner/defendant did not comply the said requirement.
Hence this court again resend the Ex.A.1 to the handwriting expert vide docket
Senior Civil Judge,
11
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
order dated 24.11.2023. But the handwriting expert again returned the documents vide Receive No.123 dated 02.03.2024 stating that the documents have been ex- amined and no conclusive opinion could be drawn on the available standards and it is felt that some more extensive admitted Telugu hand-writings of the concerned person are required for the purpose of comparison.
19)According to the version of the defendant, Ex.A.1 promissory note is partly filled up by D.W.2, but the facts best known to the defendant that he did not furnish the extensive admitted handwriting of D.W.2 around the period of 2015 as required by the handwriting expert for comparison of Ex.A.1 in support of his con- tention that the suit promissory note was not scribed by one person and it is partly scribed by D.W.2 filling up the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and words “ఒక లక రరపయల" and interest in words "రరడ రరపయల" , as such the plaintiff is not the holder-in-due course of Ex.A.1 and no transaction was took place in between the plaintiff and the defendant. Moreover, it is the case of the defendant that he bor- rowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from one Singampally Polynaidu and gave partly filled up promissory note and cheque to him on 13.03.2015 with future date 08.10.2015, but the said Singampally Polynaidu did not return the said partly filled up promissory note and cheque to the defendant inspite of discharge of the debt by the defendant on 30.03.2015 stating that those documents were misplaced and he will return the said documents whenever they are traced out, but the said
Singampally Polynaidu joined hand-in-glove with the plaintiff and got filled up the remaining blanks in Ex.A1 promissory note and cheque in favour of plaintiff and
Senior Civil Judge,
12
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
got filed the present suit, as such there is no debtor or creditor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.
But, he did not choose to file any case against the said Singampally Polynaidu for using the said partly filled up promissory note and cheque and got filled in the name of plaintiff. Moreover, it can be seen from the cross-examination of D.W.1, the said S. Polinaidu is also relative of defendant. During course of cross- examination, it was elicited that the said S.P. Naidu was no more. But he did not choose to examine the family members of said S.P. Naidu, whether the said S.P.
Naidu lent the amount to the defendant or not. It is also elicited that the grand fa- ther of plaintiff, defendant and said S.P. Naidu are brothers. In such circum- stances, the admission made by the P.W.1 during his cross-examination that one
S.P. Naidu is his relative is no way helpful to infer the connection in between S.P.
Naidu and Ex.A.1.
20)In the written statement, it is the defence taken by the defendant that the promissory note and cheque were partly filled up by one S.Pydapu Naidu on 13.03.2015 and the same was subsequently materially altered by the plaintiff and filed the present suit and hence the promissory note and cheque are not valid instruments on the ground of material alteration, but he got examined one Pydam
Naidu as D.W.2. Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that D.W.2 is not the alleged
Pydapu Naidu as mentioned in the written statement, for which no explanation was offered by the defendant that the Pydapu Naidu is mentioned in the written statement is D.W.2 by name Pydam Naidu and his name was wrongly mentioned
Senior Civil Judge,
13
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
in the written statement as Pydapu Naidu. During the cross-examination of
D.W.1, it can be seen that there are several persons in the locality having the same ‘sur’ name of ‘Singampalli’. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the said Singampalli Pydapu Naidu and one Pydam Naidu who was examined as
D.W.2 is one and the same. In the chief examination of D.W.2, he deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from one Singampalli
Polinaidu on 13.03.2015 as hand loan in his presence and then Singampalli
Polinaidu demanded the defendant to give him one promissory note with future date i.e. 08.10.2015 and a cheque, the defendant requested him to partly fill up the said promissory note and cheque. Hence, he filled in regard to the figure
Rs.1,00,000/-, date 08.10.2015 and the interest "రరడ రరపయల". But no explana- tion was offered by the defendant as to why the said promissory note was given with future date of 08.10.2015 and he did not choose to take such plea in his written statement and the said version newly introduced in the chief examination affidavit of D.W.2.
21)It is the case of defendant that promissory note and cheque were partly filled up by one S. Pydapu Naidu, but the same was subsequently materially altered by the plaintiff to file the present suit. The learned counsel for defendant argued that on the face of Ex.A.1 it clearly visible that at date column “1” is added preceding to figure “8” and relied upon a decision in a case between Methuku
Ravindranath Vs. Sure Krishnamurthy in Second Appeal No.1587 of 2011
dated 18.02.2013. In the above said case, all the blanks in promissory note were
Senior Civil Judge,
14
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
in the handwriting of the defendant, but the name of the borrower was in type- writing. Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that once the borrower has filled the blanks in the promissory note, it is expected that he writes his name in the blank relating to borrower and casted a doubt on the genuinity of the transac- tion. But, in the present case, on one hand it is the case of plaintiff that P.W.2 is the scribe of Ex.A.1 promissory note. On the other hand, it is the case of defen- dant that D.W.2 has partly filled up Ex.A.1 promissory note, when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.03.2015 from one Singampalli
Polinaidu, as such the plaintiff is not the holder in due course.
22)The learned counsel for defendant also argued that during cross-examina- tion, P.W.1 deposed that he cannot say that the recitals in Ex.A.1 are not in one hand writing and in the cross-examination of P.W.2 i.e. 1st attestor of Ex.A.1 admitted that the writing at date column on the top of promissory note and the writing of date underneath the signature of scribe is different and also admitted that the writing in all the contents of promissory note and writing at column of
Aksharala “ఒక లక రరపయల” is different, it clearly shows that Ex.A.1 is not scribed by one and the same person and relied upon a decision in between V.
Narasimha Reddy Vs. P. Ravindra Reddy in Appeal Suit No.967/2012
decided on 30th November, 2023. Wherein the defendant and plaintiff family lived together till 2003 and family disputes were arose subsequently, there was an earlier transaction under Ex.B.3 and the said promissory note was in the hand- writing of plaintiff and the case of defendant is that he borrowed only
Senior Civil Judge,
15
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
Rs.1,30,000/- on 01.01.2000 from the plaintiff and the amount column was altered as Rs.11,30,000/- and the date was altered as 01.01.2006 and that the plaintiff has no such financial capacity. In the present case, P.W.1 deposed that the transaction under Ex.A.1 was scribed by one person at one time and the defendant got Ex.A.1 scribe and he has no knowledge about the handwritings in
Ex.A.1 and the entire Ex.A.1 is in one handwriting. Though P.W2 admitted that the writing “ఒక లక రరపయల” and the writing in date column on the top and underneath the signature of scribe is different, he clearly deposed in the cross- examination that the suit promissory note was written by one Prasad in his presence and denied the suggestion that the suit promissory note was partially written in his presence. P.W.3 scribe clearly deposed that the defendant called him to scribe the promissory note and both the 1st attestor and scribe categori- cally deposed about the execution of Ex.A.1 and passing of consideration under
Ex.A.1 in their presence.
23)The learned counsel for defendant also relied on a decision in between
Jayantilal Goel Vs. Zubeda Khanum of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh decided on 18th February, 1985. Wherein it is the case of defendant that the consideration under promissory note cannot be said to have passed and that the date on ExA.1 promissory note is inserted later to the execution of instrument putting it as 23.04.1974.
24)The learned counsel for defendant also relied on a decision in a case between State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram of Hon'ble Supreme Court
Senior Civil Judge,
16
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
of India decided on 26th September, 1978. Wherein it is observed that both under Secs.45 & 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the later on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience. In either case, the court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and the finding of the same characteristics in a large measure in the disputed writing.
25)In the present case, it is the case of the plaintiff that P.W.3 is the scribe of
Ex.A.1 and he got examined the scribe as P.W.3. P.W.3 also consistently deposed that he scribed Ex.A.1 on the relevant point of date, time, and place and passing of consideration thereunder. On the other hand, it is the case of defendant that
Ex.A.1 promissory note was partly filled up by D.W.2. But in order to invoke
Sec.73 to compare the writing of “ఒక లక రరపయల” and “రరడ రరపయల” was written by D.2 or not, there is no admitted writing of concerned person i.e. D.W.2 available on record and the defendant did not choose to file the extensive admitted signatures of D.W.2 to compare with the writing of “ఒక లక రరపయల” and “రరడ రరపయల” even as required by the handwriting expert in a petition filed under Sec.45 of Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, there is a difference of person between Pydapu Naidu as mentioned in written statement and the name of D.W.2
Pydam Naidu. In such circumstances, when P.Ws.2 & 3 categorically deposed about the execution of Ex.A.1 and passing of consideration thereunder in their
Senior Civil Judge,
17
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
presence. In the absence of admitted writings of D.W.2 who is claiming that he partly filled up Ex.A.1, this court to compare the writing in Ex.A.1.
26)Upon perusal of written statement and cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, it can be said that the defendant did not dispute the signature on Ex.A.1. When the defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A.1, the presumption under Sec.118 of
Negotiable Instruments Act would come into play and the court shall presume that the transaction covered under the said instrument was took place on the date and place and passing of consideration thereunder as mentioned in Ex.A.1 unless and until contrary is proved. But the defendant did not choose to the extensive hand-writings of D.W.2 to send the same for comparison by the handwriting expert to enable the expert to give his opinion that the suit promissory note was not scribed by one person, in support of his contention. Though the counsel for the defendant cross-examined the P.Ws.1 to 3 nothing was elicited to discard the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.Ws.1 to 3 consistently deposed about the execu- tion of Ex.A.1 by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and passing of consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- thereunder.
27)Though, it is the contention of the defendant that there were long time disputes in between the plaintiff and the defendant and complaints were given by the defendant and his father against the plaintiff in the year 2015 and 2016 vide
Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 and the said fact was admitted by the plaintiff and in such circumstances, the question of lending amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant does not arise; it can be seen from Ex.B.1 dated 19.05.2015 that a
Senior Civil Judge,
18
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
report was given by the defendant to the K. Kotapadu Police Station, but it can be seen that it was given against one Tata, son of Appalanaidu. It can be seen from
Ex.B.2 dated 11.02.2016 that it was given by one Singampalli Chinna Somulu against Singampalli Srinu that is subsequent to suit transaction. During cross- examination, the plaintiff admitted that the defendant and his father filed complaint against him. Ex.B.2 is subsequent to Ex.A.1 suit transaction. Moreover, the plaintiff and defendant are relatives.
28)It is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that D.W.1 during his cross-examination admitted that the plaintiff in the present suit is a witness in a suit promissory note in O.S.926/2016 filed by defendant in the present suit, on the file of Hon’ble II Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam. When any disputes existed in between the plaintiff and the defendant as alleged by the defendant, as to why the defendant has chosen the plaintiff as a witness in a promissory note which was filed in O.S.926/16 on the file of II Addl. Sr. Civil
Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam. Moreover, during cross-examination, P.W.1
clearly stated that they are small petty disputes, but not serious disputes. In such circumstances, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendant cannot be taken into consideration. Upon perusal of evidence and upon consider- ing the arguments on both side counsels, even if the motive in fabricating the
Ex.A1 by using the partly filled promissory note given to one Singampally Poly- naidu is the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, but the Ex.A.1 is prior to Ex.B.2 complaint. In such circumstances, no such inference can be drawn
Senior Civil Judge,
19
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
that due to such disputes, Ex.A.1 was brought into existence in collusion with the said Singampally Polynaidu.
29)Though, it is argued by the learned counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff during cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot say the recitals in
Ex.A.1 are not in one handwriting. Witness adds that it is the defendant who got
Ex.A.1 scribe and he has no knowledge about hand-writings in Ex.A.1. The entire
Ex.A.1 is in one handwriting. The defendant brought the scribe for the purpose of drafting Ex.A.1. He does not know that the consideration and the rate of interest is written in words and figures by one S.P. Naidu, the witness says that the defendant himself might have got it written by the said S.P. Naidu at later stage.
Then the evidence in cross-examination is sufficient to show that the Ex.A.1 was not drawn in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff is not the holder-in-due-course.
30)From the cross-examination of P.W.1, it can also be seen that the defendant denied the suggestion put forth by the counsel for the defendant that it is one S.P. Naidu who filled the amount and rate of interest in Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.1 is created due to collusion between the plaintiff, one S.P. Naidu and the Polinaidu and that he is not the holder-in- due course with respect to Ex.A.1. The evidence which was given by the plaintiff in his cross-examination shows that the scribe was brought by the defendant and he is not having knowledge about the hand- writing in Ex.A.1.
31)Upon perusal of the evidence of P.W2, who is 1st attestor and P.W.3 is scribe, they categorically deposed about the lending amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to
Senior Civil Judge,
20
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
the defendant on 18.10.2015 and passing of consideration thereunder and execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant, the said Ex.A.1 was written by M. Prasad i.e. P.W.2, the total transaction was took place in the presence of attestors and scribe. During cross-examination of P.W.2 & P.W.3 nothing was elicited except giving the suggestions in regard to the defence taken by the defendant. When the direct witnesses P.Ws.2 & 3 are categorically deposing about the lending of amount and execution of Ex.A.1 and passing of consideration thereunder and in view of discrepancies of the case of defendant that as to why the D.W.2 did not choose to put his signature as scribe in Ex.A.1 and in the absence of cogent explanation as to why he filled upon only the date column and amount column and as to why he filled up the date with future date and also in view of difference between the person Pydapu Naidu as mentioned in the written statement that he was filled up “ఒక లక రరపయల” and “రరడ రరపయల” in Ex.A.1 and the person who was examined as D.W.2 by name Pydam Naidu claiming that he is the person partly filled up the Ex.A.1 I.e.one lakh rupees and two rupees and the inaction on the part of defendant to furnish extensive admitted writing of concerned person who wrote the words “ఒక లక రరపయల” and “రరడ రరపయల” i.e. D.W.2 to the handwriting expert so as to enable the expert to arrive the conclusion in giving his opinion, it cannot be said that the Ex.A.1 was not drawn in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff is not the holder-in-due course of Ex.A.1.
32)In view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has established that the defendant executed the suit promissory note on
Senior Civil Judge,
21
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
18.10.2015 in favour of plaintiff undertaking to repay Rs.1,00,000/- @ 24% p.a.
interest on demand by examining himself as P.W.1 and got examined the 1st attestor and scribe of Ex.A.1 as P.Ws.2 & 3 coupled with Exs.A.1 & A.2 as such the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, the Issue Nos.1 & 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff.
33)Issue No.3 :-
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,71,866/- (Rupees One Lakh, Seventy one thousand, eight hundred and sixty six only) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 percent p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6 percent p.a. from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23rd day of April, 2024.
Sd/- x x U. Madhuri x x
V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No. of witnesses examined
For Plaintiff :
P.W.1 : Singampalli Srinivasa Rao (plaintiff) P.W.2 : Madaka Srinivasa Rao (1st attestor of Ex.A1) P.W.3 : Molleti Prasad (scribe of Ex.A.1)
For Defendant :
D.W.1 : Singampalli Rambabu (defendant) D.W.2 : Singampalli Pydam Naidu (3rd party)
Senior Civil Judge,
22
O.S.645/2018
Date of Disposal : 23.04.2024 V AJCJ/VSP
No. of Exhibits marked
For Plaintiff :
Ex.A.1 : Original suit promissory note dated 18.10.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of P.W.1 for Rs.1,00,000/- undertaking to repay with interest @24% p.a. and Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice dated 12.10.2018 issued by P.W.1 to the defendant under Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
For Defendant :
Ex.B.1 : Receipt dated 19.05.2015 issued by SHO, A. Koduru P.S. of complaint given by the defendant, Ex.B.2 : Receipt dated 11.12.2016 issued by SHO, A. Koduru PS of complaint given by Singampalli Chinna Somulu i.e. father of defendant, Ex.B.3 : Legal notice got issued by the plaintiff dated 12.10.2018, Ex.B.4 : Office copy of reply notice dated 24.10.2018, Ex.B.5 : Reply rejoinder got issued by the plaintiff dated 14.11.2018, Ex.B.6 : Office copy of reply to the rejoinder dated 20.11.2018.
Sd/- x x U. Madhuri x x
V AJCJ/VSP
Senior Civil Judge,