THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU SECOND APPEAL No.1222 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 16.04.2009, in A.S.No.77 of 2007 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the judgment and decree, dated 25.04.2007, in O.S.No.58 of 2004, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur, were confirmed. 2. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: The plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the defendant basing on Promissory Note, dated 10.04.2001, executed by the defendant agreeing to pay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. As the defendant failed to pay that amount, in spite of several demands, the plaintiff filed the Suit. 4. The defendant filed written statement denying the liability to pay the amount and stated that he never borrowed amount from the plaintiff. The suit Promissory Note is a forged and fabricated document and is not supported by consideration. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Original Suit. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, following issues have been framed for trial: “1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for? 2) Whether the suit pronote is forged and fabricated one? 3) Whether the suit pronote is not supported by cash consideration? 4) Whether the suit pronote is materially altered? 5) To what relief?” 6. During trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were got marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked. 7. The trial Court accepting the evidence of PW.1, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff established the execution of Ex.A1 – Promissory Note by the defendant; and that the burden of proof on the defendant to show that Ex.A1 was a fabricated one, has not been discharged and accordingly, decreed the suit. On appeal, the said judgment and decree were confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal is filed by the defendant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Courts below are not correct in comparing the admitted signature of the appellant with the signature on the Promissory Note and ignored the evidence of DW.2, who stated that the Promissory Note was not executed by the appellant; that sending of Ex.A1 – Promissory Note to hand writing expert for comparison and opinion is necessary; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 9. Sub-Section 1 of Section 100 C.P.C. declares that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Sub-Section 3 of Section 100 C.P.C. requires the appellant to precisely state in the memorandum of appeal substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Even if a question of law is involved in the subject matter, that itself is not a ground to admit the Second Appeal. Therefore, the appellant must show that substantial question of law is involved in the appeal so as to admit the same. 10. One of the substantial questions of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that whether the Courts below are correct or not in comparing the admitted signature of the appellant with that of the signature in the Promissory Note. As to comparison of signature by the Court, it can be said that although there is no legal bar to the Junior Civil Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature, he should, as a matter of precaution and fragulity hesitate to base his objective finding solely on comparison made by himself. The prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. No ground is taken in the memorandum of appeal that appellant filed an application in trial Court to send the document in question along with admitted signatures to an expert for comparison and opinion. Therefore, when the appellant is denying the execution of the Promissory Note, burden is on him to establish that he has not executed the Promissory Note and the signature found on Ex.A1 is forged one. Of course this burden shifts on to the defendant after plaintiff discharged the initial burden of proving execution of Promissory Note. On this aspect, the evidence of PW.1 is very clear that Ex.A1 was executed by the appellant/defendant. That part of evidence lends support from the evidence of PW.2. Both the Courts below placed reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. 11. The evidence of PW.1, who is the respondent herein, would go to show that the appellant received an amount of Rs.30,000/- and executed Promissory Note and it was scribed by no other than the appellant himself. Therefore, the initial burden placed on the respondent has been discharged. No doubt, inadvertent admission is made by PW.2, who is one of the attester of the Promissory Note, which would go to show that the contents of Ex.A1 were scribed by the husband of the respondent and not by the appellant. The appellate Court has given much importance for the said admission of PW.2, for the reason that there is no need for PW.2 to attest a forged Promissory Note. That finding cannot be said to be perverse. A question of fact has to be decided by appreciating evidence available on record. If the evidence of PW.1 is to be accepted, especially when there is no other reason to doubt her testimony, it is clear that DW.1 executed Ex.A1. Then the burden shifts to the appellant under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Mere taking a plea of forgery cannot be said to be discharging the burden. The plea must be substantiated with acceptable evidence. That evidence is lacking, except oral plea given by the appellant that he has not borrowed any amount. DW.2 did not support the case of DW.1. DW.2 stated that he did not attest Ex.A1. That is not proved by any other evidence. Therefore, both the Courts below placed reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. The appellant has not discharged the burden placed on him. The trial Court rightly decreed the suit and the same is rightly confirmed by the appellate Court. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law is involved to admit the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed as none of the findings of the Courts below is shown to be perverse. 12. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 12, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU SECOND APPEAL No.1222 OF 2010 Between: G. Ramanjaneyulu .....APPELLANT AND Smt. G. Jayamma ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU SECOND APPEAL No.1222 OF 2010 November 12, 2010