THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 255 of 1995 JUDGMENT: The defendants in O.S.No.106 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad, are the appellants herein. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.44,975/- being the amount due on two promissory notes, one for Rs.15,000/- and another for Rs.20,000/- executed on 20.11.1986 by both the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. It is also further pleaded that on the same day another promissory note was executed in favour of the wife of the defendant for Rs.25,000/-. Basing on the promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, the suit has been filed. The defendants filed written statement denying the loan transaction and contending that the plaintiff constructed a house during the years from 1985 to 1987 and he made some purchases from the defendants, who have got business and he has to pay a sum of Rs.54,450/-. When the defendants demanded for payment of the said money, the plaintiff requested the 1st defendant to sell his plots and accordingly the property was sold for a consideration of Rs.82,900/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-, which the plaintiff wanted. Aggrieved by the loss of Rs.50,000/- the plaintiff bore grudge and fabricated the promissory note and, therefore, there is no liability to pay the suit amount. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the suit promissory note is forged, fabricated and devoid of consideration? 2. To what relief the parties are entitled to? On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 and on behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. The report of the hand- writing expert and other records were marked as Exs.X-1 to X-5. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff and aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 31.08.1994, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the suit transaction is true? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount? POINTS: Evidently, this being a suit based on promissory notes, the execution has been denied, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the promissory notes and also passing of the consideration. In order to prove the said fact, apart from the evidence of P.W.1 he also examined P.Ws.2 and 3. Though the documents are sent to the expert and report was marked, the expert was not examined. Therefore, his opinion is of no avail. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the attestors on Exs.A-1 and A-2, clearly goes to show that the promissory notes were executed after receipt of the consideration in the year 1986. Evidently, the acquaintance of the plaintiff and the defendants is not in dispute. If the plaintiff has purchased the goods from the defendants and the said amount was paid after the sale of the plots, then the plaintiff cannot have any grievance. Furthermore, the contention of the defendants is that the land of the plaintiff was sold and as against the expected price of Rs.1,50,000/- only a sum of Rs.82,900/- was realized and, therefore, the plaintiff bore grudge and fabricated the promissory note. The reason for fabrication appears to be improbable. When the plaintiff has got confidence on the defendants and wanted the sale of the property to be effected by him, there is no reason for him to have any grievance against the defendants, if the price is not fetched. If the price has not fetched, the plaintiff would not have executed the sale deeds. Therefore, the contention of the defendants is not probable. Furthermore, when the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is to be taken into consideration, the execution of the promissory note and taking of consideration is established and there is absolutely no motive for them to fabricate the documents. The lower Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion and decreed the suit. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the points are answered. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 12-10-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 255 of 1995 DATE: 12-10-2011 MR