THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA SECOND APPEAL No. 814 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2011 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, dismissing the appeal in A.S. No. 149 of 2007, ﬁled by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, dismissing the suit O.S. No. 245 of 2002, ﬁled by him against the respondent, for recovery of amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum on the strength of a promissory note. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgments under appeal. The appellant is the plaintiﬀ while the respondent is the defendant. The appellant, on the strength of Ex.A1- promissory note, said to have been executed by the respondent, ﬁled the suit against him, for recovery of an amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum. Though the appellant to prove his case that the respondent having received an amount of Rs.30,000/- executed Ex. A1-promissory note in his favour, examined himself as P.W.1 and the attester as P.W.2, and as the respondent failed to repay the same, he is entitled to recover the same from him, the fact remains, both the Courts below upon appreciation of the evidence found that P.W.2, whom the appellant examined to support his case that the respondent executed Ex.A1-promissory note, in his evidence stated that earlier he used to work as Advocate Clerk, that he has no acquaintance with the parties to the suit prior to Ex.A1-promissory note and that no amount was paid by the appellant to the respondent in his presence. Considering this evidence, the Courts below came to the conclusion that P.W.2 attested on Ex. A1-promissory without knowing its contents, and as such, it is not safe to rely upon his evidence to support the case of the appellant, and accordingly did not consider his evidence. The Courts below further found that though the appellant initially sought to examine the scribe of Ex.A1- promissory note, subsequently without citing any reasons, he ﬁled a memo, giving up the evidence of the scribe. In view of the appellant giving up the evidence of the scribe without furnishing any reasons for giving up his evidence, the Courts below came to the conclusion that the said act of the appellant gives rise to suspicion and supports the case of the respondent (D.W.1) that Ex. A1-promissory note was not executed by the respondent and that it was fabricated by the appellant for the purpose of the case. The fact that Ex.A1-promissory is a forged and fabricated one, further stood fortiﬁed by the evidence of the handwriting expert, who the respondent examined as D.W.2. D.W.2, who on the basis of Ex.X1, compared the disputed and admitted signatures of the respondent on Ex.A1-promissory note, in his evidence stated that he issued his opinion and that the signature of the respondent on Ex.A1-promissory note does not tally with his admitted signature. Since the evidence of the expert is not conclusive proof, the Courts below in coming to the conclusion that the respondent did not execute Ex. A1-promissory note and that it was fabricated by the appellant for the purpose of the case, took into consideration the ﬁnancial capacity of the parties. The Courts below upon appreciation of the evidence in that regard found that the appellant in his evidence admitted that the respondent is a landlord and well to do person and while he earns his income as a daily wage coolie and that he earns Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day. Though the appellant claimed that he is also cultivating land and earning income and has the capacity to lend money, he did not ﬁle any evidence to show that he was cultivating the land. Thus the Courts below came to the conclusion that the appellant, who was working as a coolie, had no ﬁnancial capacity to lend, and much less there was any need for the respondent to borrow from the appellant by executing Ex.A1-promissory note, and that as contended by the respondent, Ex.A1- promissory note, is a forged and fabricated document. The ﬁndings recorded by the Courts below in the judgments under appeal, being concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, this Court ﬁnds no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith. This apart, there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, warranting its interference by this Court with the judgment under appeal, in exercise of its power under Section 100 C.P.C. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 3rd December, 2011 IBL