THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.335 of 2008 Date: 18.11.2010 Between: Mudunuri Rama Raju … Appellant and K. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Raju … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.335 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 29.6.2007, in A.S.No.300 of 2005, passed by the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, in partly allowing the appeal by reducing the rate of interest and confirming the decree and judgment, dated 12.9.2005, in O.S.No.298 of 2003, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.298 of 2003. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties are referred to as per their array in the suit before the Court below. 4. The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest at 24% per annum basing on a pro-note, dated 5.3.2001. Basing on the evidence and the material available on record, the trial Court decreed the same for a sum of Rs.2,46,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed appeal A.S.No.300 of 2005. After re- appreciation of entire evidence, the lower appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, however, reduced the rate of interest from 24% to 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed the present second appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant contended that the both the Courts below have come to a wrong conclusion with regard to execution of the alleged pro-note by the defendant, ignoring the fact that no independent witness was examined. He also contends that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are totally perverse and not warranted as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. He further contends that the lower appellate Court is not justified in confirming the findings of the trial Court. 6. I have perused the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 7. The plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and the attestor of the pro-note was examined as PW.2. Though the defendant took a plea that the plaintiff obtained blank pro-note containing his signature at the time of payment of prized amount and the pro-note was a rank forged one, neither of the said contentions could be established by the defendant. When a pro-note is executed, there are certain presumptions available in favour of the plaintiff, unless and until the said presumptions are rebutted by the defendant. In the instant case, no evidence has been adduced by the defendant to establish that the alleged pro-note is a forged one and the pro-note containing his signature was made use of by the plaintiff. The defendant has taken conflicting pleas. However, since no rebuttal evidence has been adduced as against the legal presumptions, the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit and the same has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. 8. For the foregoing, there is no question of law, much less substantial, warranting interference by this Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. 9. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH 18.11.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.335 of 2008 18.11.2010 (Msr)