THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1335 of 2011 Dated:16.12.2011 Between: Karri Narayan Reddy (died), And another. …Appellants and Akella Kameswara Sai Baba, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1335 of 2011 JUDGMENT: Karri Narayana Reddy filed a suit, being O.S.No.21 of 2005, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,56,500/- based on a promissory note. He died. Karri Buli Venkata Srinivasa Chakravarthi, who is son of the original plaintiff, filed an application to come on record based on a Will dated 21.08.2008. The same was allowed. After regular trial, the Court of Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit on 06.04.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants/ respondents herein filed A.S.No.136 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry. The same was allowed on 27.06.2011 setting aside the judgment of the Court below, and the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said reversing judgment, the plaintiff filed the instant Second Appeal. The original plaintiff alleged that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein (hereafter called, the defendants) jointly borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- agreeing to pay interest at 24% per annum by executing a promissory note dated 10.12.2001; in spite of demands, they failed to discharge their obligation, and accordingly the suit was filed. Defendants opposed the suit. They alleged that signatures on the promissory notes were forged. During the trial into two issues, Karri Narayana Reddy himself gave evidence as P.W.1 and marked the only document Ex.A1 (promissory note). Though P.W.2 was brought in and his affidavit in lieu of chief examination was filed, he did not come to face cross-examination, and therefore, his evidence was eschewed. On behalf of defendants, second defendant gave evidence as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B1 - Will. As mentioned earlier, the trial Court rejected the theory of forgery and came to the conclusion that Ex.A1- promissory note is true and genuine. In the defendants’ appeal, the first appellate Court reconsidered the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish borrowing of amount by both the defendants jointly; that P.W.1 did not adduce any evidence to prove the genuineness of promissory note, and that the trial Court wrongly appreciated the evidence. The appeal was accordingly allowed. Sri E.V.S.S.Acharyulu, Counsel representing the Counsel for the appellant, would submit that the lower appellate Court failed to consider the admission of the respondents with regard to the signature on the instrument, and when P.W.1 – Karri Narayana Reddy proved the execution of promissory note, there could not have been any doubt for accepting the case of the plaintiff. He would also submit that the inference drawn by the first appellate Court is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The second defendant filed separate written statement. He pleaded that his name is not Akella Venkateswara Rao as described in the plaint and that his real name is Bulusu Hari Durga Venkateswarlu. He categorically stated that he never met the plaintiff. When the plaintiff came to the Court alleging that both defendants jointly borrowed the amount by executing promissory note and when one of the defendants pleads that he does not know the promisee, the burden is certainly on the plaintiff to remove the doubts in the mind of the Court. Except examining himself as P.W.1, no corroboration was attempted nor brought in by the plaintiff. Even though P.W.2 was sought to be examined by filing his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, he did not come for cross- examination. Therefore, the first appellate Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff failed to discharge the burden. The Second Appeal is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16.12.2011 vs