THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.660 of 2009 Dt:27-07-2010 Between : Konda Ranga Reddy ..Appellant And Galiveedu Raja Reddy .. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri L.J. Veera Reddy Counsel for respondents : < GIST >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.660 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The respondent filed O.S.No.98 of 1999 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, against the appellant for recovery of certain amount, on the basis of a promissory note, dated 24-06-1996. The appellant opposed the suit and denied the execution of the promissory note. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 23-03-2001. The respondent filed A.S.No.4 of 2001 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty. The appeal was allowed on 27-09-2005. Hence, this Second Appeal. Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court dismissed the suit by taking into account, the report of the handwriting expert, which is to the effect that the signature on the promissory note, marked as Ex.A-1, is forged, and the lower Appellate Court has reversed the judgment of the trial Court, without any basis. He further submits that Ex.A-1 was not proved, as required under law, much less, the respondent established that Ex.A-1 is supported by consideration. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the suit pronote and its claim is true, valid and binding on the defendant ? 2. Whether the consideration under the suit pronote is received by defendant ? 3. Whether the suit pronote is a forged one ? 4. Whether the suit pronote was brought into existence on account of ill-feelings in the agreement of sale, dt.7-6-99 ? The respondent deposed as PW-1 and filed the promissory note, as Ex.A-1. The appellant deposed as DW-1, and agreement of sale dated 07-06-1999, between the same parties, was filed as Ex.B- 1. The report of the handwriting expert was taken on record, as Ex.X- 1. The trial Curt found that Ex.A-1, promissory note, was not executed by the appellant, and that it is not supported by consideration, and accordingly dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1) Whether the opinion of the expert in Ex.X-1 is admissible in evidence and it can be looked into ? 2) Whether the defendant executed the suit pronote in Ex.A-1 and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for ? 3) Whether the decree and judgment in Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty are liable to be set aside ? The appellant and respondent were acquainted with each other, and there existed several transactions between them. The suit was filed on the basis of Ex.A-1. In his written-statement, the appellant stated that he did scribe Ex.A-1, and put his signature, but did not sign on any revenue stamps, on account of the fact that, as against his request for lending Rs.1 lakh, the respondent expressed his readiness to pay Rs.50,000/- only. As PW-1, the respondent repeated the contents of the plaint. In addition to that, he stated that the appellant executed an agreement of sale, Ex.B-1, in his favour, agreeing to sell an item of immovable property, and when disputes arose, he returned Ex.B-1, and the amount covered by that agreement, was returned to him with the intervention of Police. The respondent was under obligation to prove Ex.A-1, by examining the scribe and witnesses. However, that necessity is obviated on account of the fact that, in categorical terms, the appellant admitted that he scribed the document, and signed upon it. This denial was about the signature upon the revenue stamps. Once the appellant has admitted that he scribed the document and signed upon it, there was absolutely no necessity for the trial Court to send the document for the opinion of an expert. It is just ununderstandable as to how a person conversant with the writing of promissory notes would sign upon it, but not upon the revenue stamps. At any rate, the appellant did not choose to summon the expert, when the respondent has raised serious objection as to the correctness and accuracy of the findings in Ex.X-1. The trial Court has simply accepted the report, without taking into account the aspects, referred to above. It is no doubt true that, even if a promissory note is proved, a plaintiff can recover the amount, covered by it, if only the consideration thereof is proved. Here again, there is intrinsic evidence, which has flown from the appellant himself. He stated that he requested the respondent to lend a sum of Rs.1 lakh, but the latter expressed his readiness to lend only Rs.50,000/-, and in that view of the matter, he did not proceed with the completion of the drafting of Ex.A-1. If that were to be so, there was no necessity for him to enter the figure of Rs.50,000/-, in numbers and words, in Ex.A-1. In such cases, the presumption, that a negotiable instrument is supported by consideration; deserves to be drawn. The lower Appellate Court has discussed all these aspects and decreed the suit. This Court does not find any substantial question of law in the Second Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.27-07-2010. KO