IN THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE , GUDIVADA.

PRESENT: SRI K.PRABHAKARA RAO

Prl.Senior Civil Judge.
Wednesday, this the 20th day of January, 2016

O.S.No.272 of 2011
Between :

Movva Rambabu, S/o Pandu Ranga Rao, Hindu,

Aged 50 years, Properties, R/o D.No.15/163-5, Satya
Narayana Puram, Gudivada, Gudivada JCJC.

...Plaintiff.

And

Nunna Sathi Raju, S/o Samudrudu, Hindu, Aged 55

years, Propertifes, R/o Kocharla Village, Kalidindi
Mandal, KKLR JCJC.

...Defendants.

This ORIGINAL SUIT coming on 20.1.2016 for hearing before me in the

presence of Sri.M.Rama Chandra Rao, Advocate for plaintiff, and
Sri.G.Srinivas, Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the material on
record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this
Court has delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for recover of

an amount Rs.1,17,133/- with costs and subsequent interest basing on a

promissory note allegedly have been executed by the defendant.

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

On 14.11.2008 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000/-

from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed the suit promissory on

the same date at Gudivada agreeing to repay the above said amount with

compound interest at the rate of 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or his Order

on demand. Later the plaintiff made several demands on the defendant to

discharge the above said debt, but the defendant postponed the same.

Hence the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant

19.06.2011, for which the defendant issued a reply notice dated 21.06.2012
2

with false allegations, as such the plaintiff is constrained to file the present

suit. He further averred that the defendant is not entitled to any debt relief

acts that is act No.45/87 or 2/99 he further averred that he is claiming simple

interest at the rate of 24% p.a. only in the present suit.

3.The defendant appeared before this court through his counsel and filed

written statement with the following averments:

He specifically denied the borrowing of Rs.70,000/- from the

plaintiff on 14.11.2008 and execution of the suit promissory note at

Gudivada in favour of the plaintiff. He also denied the allegation that the

plaintiff demanded him on several occasions to discharge the above said

promissory note debt. He further averred that he got issued reply registered

notice dated 21.06.2011 with through state of affairs. He further averred

that there are no merits in the present suit hence it is liable to be dismissed

with costs.

4. Basing on the above said pleadings the following issues are settled for

trial by my learned predecessor.

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on

the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as

Prayed for in the plaint?

3. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

5. In order to establish their respective contentions the plaintiff himself

examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. He also examined PW2 in

support of his case. Later the defendant himself examined as DW1and got

marked Ex.B1, B2. The defendant also examined the hand writing expert as

DW2 and got marked Ex.C1 that is opinion of Ex.P1.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

7. Issue No.1 and 2:

The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that in order to prove

the execution of the Ex.A1 promissory note the plaintiff himself examined as

PW1 and also examined one of the attesters as PW2 and their evidence is
 3

Prl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, O.S.No.227 of 2012

Gudivada. Dated 2.2.2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

consisting and cogent to believe the plaintiff case. He further argued that

the Ex.C1 expert opinion cannot over ride the positive and direct evidence

adduced by the plaintiff in order to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory

note, as such ignoring the Ex.C1 and the evidence of DW2 the suit may be

decreed with costs and subsequent interest.

8. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that even during cross

examination of PW1 and 2 they have categorically admitted the difference

appearing in the Ex.A1 promissory note in the name of the defendant and

the same was confirmed by the hand writing expert and Ex.C1, as such it is

clear that the signature in Ex.A1 stands in the name of the defendant is

forged and fabricated one hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. He further

argued that in his evidence DW2 gave positive reasons how he came to

conclusion and issued Ex.C1 report as such the evidence of DW3 is trust

worthy and believable, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9. Issue No.1 and 2:

During the chief examination of PW1 and 2 they deposed in one

voice that the defendant borrowed Rs.70,000/- from the PW1 on 14.11.2008

and executed the Ex.A1 promissory note at the office of PW2 in Gudivada

town between 4 to 5 P.M. Though the PW1 and 2 cross examination at length

they consistently deposed in one voice that the defendant borrowed the

above said amount and executed the suit promissory note.

10. In this case the main contention of the defendant is that the signatures

in Ex.A1 promissory note stands in his name is forged and fabricated.

11. During the cross examination of PW1 he admitted that there is a

difference in letter ‘Nu’ in the 1st signature and 2nd signature of Ex.A1 he

further admitted that there is no difference with the letter ‘Thi’ in the 1 st

signature and 2nd signature on Ex.A1. He also admitted that the finagling of

letter ‘Va’ is different in 1 st and 2nd signatures of Ex.A1, So also the letter ‘Lu’

is different in its commencement and finagling. He also admitted that the

4

signature of the Ex.A3 and A1 look different in its appearance and so also the

signature appearing of the vakalat and Ex.A1 signatures.

12. The PW2 also deposed in his cross examination there is a difference in

letter ‘Nu’ in the 1st and 2nd signature on Ex.A1 and there is no difference

with the letter ‘Thi’ in the 1 st and 2nd signature of Ex.A1. He further admitted

that the finagling of letter ‘Va’ is different in 1 st and 2nd signatures of Ex.A1,

so also the letter ‘Lu’ is different in its commencement and finagling. He also

further admitted that the signature on Ex.A3 and A1 look different in its

appearance and so also the signature appearing of vakalat and Ex.A1

signatures.

13. In support of his contention the defendant himself examined as DW1

and deposed evidence denying the execution of Ex.A1 including the

signatures in it. He also examined DW2 i.e, hand writing expert in support of

his contention to prove that the signatures in Ex.A1 promissory note are not

belong to him.

14. As can be seen from the evidence of DW2 coupled with Ex.C2 i.e, hand

writing expert he gave reasons in it and opined there are no fundamental

similarities between questioned and standards, the difference in the writing

characteristics are signature and sufficient to form a definite opinion and

finally he opined that “the person who wrote the read enclosed signature

mark S1 to S10 (stands) did not write the read enclosed signatures mark, Q1

and Q2 signatures on Ex.A1 promissory note was.

15. As can be seen from the Ex.C1 report he highlighted the difference of

letters when compared the questioned signatures with standard signatures.

What are the difference found by the expert were admitted by the PW1 and 2

in their cross examination. During the cross examination of DW2 he further

clarified how he came to conclusion regarding questioned and standard

signatures compared by him and issued Ex.C1 report. No worthwhile

substance was derived in favour of the plaintiff to discard the Ex.C1 expert

opinion. The reasons given by the DW2 for his opinion are clear and cogent.

As such this court is of the opinion that the evidence of DW2 and Ex.C1
 5

Prl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, O.S.No.227 of 2012

Gudivada. Dated 2.2.2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

opinion is believable and that the defendant well established the signatures

in Ex.A1 suit promissory note appearing in his name are not written by him.

As such the defendant well rebutted the case of the plaintiff by examining

DW2 and marking Ex.C1.

16. In view of the above said discussions this court is of the opinion that

the suit promissory note is not true, valid and binding on the defendant,

basing on it the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the amounts from the

defendant. Accordingly the issue No.1 and 2 are answered against the

plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.

17. In the result the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.3,70,000/-

(Three lakh seventy thousand rupees only) with subsequent interest at the

rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to date of decree and future

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of

realization on principle amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Two lakh fifty thousand

rupees only).

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this 20th day of January, 2016.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge,

Gudivada

Appendix of Evidence
Witness examined

For plaintiff : For defendant :

PW1: Mr.M.Rambabu DW1:N.SethiRaju

PW2: K.Jaya Rao DW2:N.KrishnaPrasad
(Hand writing Expert)
6

Documents marked

For plaintiff: For defendant:

Ex.A1 14.11.2008 Pronote Ex.B1: Certified copy of regd.,

Sale deed dt.22.07.06
Ex.A2 09.06.2011 Office copy of Ex.B2: Bunch of receipts.
Regd., Notice
Ex.A3 20.06.2011
Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.A4 21.06.2011 Reply Notice Ex.C1: Opinion of Hand writing
expert

Prl.Senior Civil Judge,

Gudivada
 7

Prl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, O.S.No.227 of 2012

Gudivada. Dated 2.2.2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE

Please take notice that the OS 227/2012 on the file of this court will
be delivered on today i.e., 2.2.2016.

Court of Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada,

Dated 2.2.2016 //BY ORDER//

Superintendent,
Court of Prl.Senior Civil Judge,
Gudivada.
To
Smt.P.V.Ramana, Advocate for
Plaintiff
Sri.M.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for
Defendants

NOTICE

Please take notice that the OS 227/2012 on the file of this court will
be delivered on today i.e., 2.2.2016.

Court of Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada,

Dated 2.2.2016 //BY ORDER//

Superintendent,
Court of Prl.Senior Civil Judge,
Gudivada.
To
Smt.P.V.Ramana, Advocate for
Plaintiff
Sri.M.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for
Defendants

NOTICE

Please take notice that the OS 227/2012 on the file of this court will
be delivered on today i.e., 2.2.2016.

Court of Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada,

Dated 2.2.2016 //BY ORDER//

Superintendent,
Court of Prl.Senior Civil Judge,
Gudivada.
To
Smt.P.V.Ramana, Advocate for
Plaintiff
Sri.M.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for
Defendants
8