THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 3512 of 1992 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1992 in O.S.No.48 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,000/- being due on a promissory note dated 01.07.1984 said to have been executed by the defendant after borrowing of sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 12%. As the defendant did not pay the amount, the suit was filed and a legal notice was issued and it was got returned. The defendant filed written statement denying the execution of the promissory note and passing of the consideration. It was also further contended that the defendant has no need to borrow this amount from the plaintiff. It was also further pleaded that there was material alteration of the promissory note as the dated 01.12.1984 altered as 01.07.1984 and consequently the promissory note is not enforceable. Though in the plaint the name of the scribe was not mentioned but in the written statement the defendant has made an allegation that the interesting and surprising aspect is the attesting witnesses are strangers to the defendant and plaintiff and also T.Chakravarthi as the scribe of the promissory note. According to him, no consideration was paid and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. After framing the necessary issues and after recording the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-3 as documents on behalf of the plaintiff and after recording the evidence of D.W.1, who is the defendant, the learned Judge has passed a decree for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the suit promissory note is true? 2. Whether there is any material alteration and the document is not enforceable? POINTS: The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- and executed the promissory note Ex.A-1 on 01.07.1984. It is said to have been attested by P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2, who is the attestor, shows that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was borrowed by the defendant and the promissory note was executed by the defendant. It is said to have been scribed by the son of the defendant. The evidence of P.W.1 also goes to show the above fact. The evidence of D.W.1 is one of denial. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the signatures do not appear to be similar, the lower Court has erred in coming to a conclusion about the genuineness of the promissory note. The comparison of the signatures is not warranted when there is evidence of the persons associated with the document and the plea of the defendant does not appear to be true. Unless the defendant is conscious of the fact that Chakravarthi is the scribe of the promissory note, there is no reason for the defendant to mention in the written statement that he was shown as the scribe of the promissory note when the plaint allegations is absent. This particular circumstance clearly goes to show that the defendant is conscious that the suit promissory note was scribed by Chakravarthi, who is no other than his son. But for the reasons best known to him, the defendant has not chosen to examine his son to disprove the scribing of the promissory note Ex.A-1. Therefore, in view of the positive evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the execution of the promissory note and passing of the consideration and the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the plaintiff, the evidence of D.W.1 cannot be accepted. Non-examination of the son of the defendant having been conscious of his involvement in the transaction clearly goes to show that the defendant has not come to the Court with truth. So far as the material alteration of the promissory note is concerned, it is true that the promissory note Ex.A-1 is initially dated as 01.12.1984 and it was made on 01.07.1984 and in fact the date 01.07.1984 is there on the top of the promissory note Ex.A-1 and also underneath the signature of the defendant in Ex.A-1. The correction must have been done either by the defendant or by the scribe of the promissory note by making a material alteration from 01.12.1984 to 01.07.1984. The plaintiff does not get any advantage since there will be no saving of the period of limitation. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that by making such an alteration the plaintiff wanted to get an advantage of interest for six months earlier. This also does not hold as a correct point in view of the fact that from the date of the suit whenever it is instituted the Court has got every right to grant interest and for that purpose no one need to make a promissory note invalid. The promissory note clearly shows that it was scribed by T.Chakravarthi. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, when the defendant has taken a plea of forgery and when his son is said to be the scribe of the promissory note and when evidently there are no disputes between him and his son, the non-examination of his son is a factor against the appellant and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2, the attestor on the promissory note and also the evidence of the plaintiff as P.W.1. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the lower Court. Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed with costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 20-10-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 3512 of 1992 DATE: 20-10-2011 MR