IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEALNo.1332 of 2010 Between: Surada Jogeswara Rao ..... APPELLANT AND Nikkanti Venkata Lakshmi Parvathi Devi .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEALNo.1332 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the defendant who suffered a decree dated 18.07.2008 in O.S.176/2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,03,500/- filed by the respondent herein. As against the said judgment, the appellant/defendant filed appeal in A.S.No.20/2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the lower appellate Court by the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2010 dismissed the appeal upholding the decision of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is discrepancy in the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 with regard to proof and execution of Ex.A1-promissory note and the Court below failed to consider the evidence of PW 3, scribe of Ex.A1 who is said to have been admitted in his evidence that there is difference in the signatures of the defendant on Ex.A1 and Ex.A3. Accordingly, it is stated that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is vitiated for the reason that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden cast on him in so far as the proof of Ex.A1-promissory note is concerned when its execution is specifically denied by the defendant who specifically contended that it is a rank forged document. Findings of both the Courts below are that the plaintiff has discharged his burden of proving Ex.A1-promissory note. I have considered the said contentions. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,03,500/- basing on Ex.A1-promissory note dated 21.07.2002. Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgment of the defendant for the notice sent by the plaintiff. It is stated that there is difference between the signatures of the defendant on Ex.A1- promissory note and Ex.A3-postal acknowledgment. It is further stated that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proving Ex.A1- promissory note. In the instant case, the plaintiff herself was examined as PW 1 and got examined PW 2 the attestor and PW 3 the scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note on her behalf. The plaintiff has discharged her initial burden of proving Ex.A1-promissory note which is said to have been executed by the defendant by examining the attesting witness as well as the scribe. As against the legal presumptions available in favour of the plaintiff under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the defendant did not rebut the said presumptions by adducing any rebuttal evidence. It is only the contention of the petitioner/appellant that even as per the evidence available on record, there is difference in the signatures of the defendant on Exs.A1 and A3. Ex.A1 is the promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant in the presence of the attesting witness and the scribe and both of them have stated that the said promissory note was executed by the defendant. Ex.A3 is only an acknowledgment for the legal notice sent by the plaintiff and the lower appellate Court clearly gone into the distinction and held that Ex.A3 is only initial of the defendant, but whereas Ex.A1 contains the signature and the thumb impression of the defendant. If that be so, absolutely no rebuttal evidence is adduced by the defendant. In view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, I do not see any question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 12.11.2010 Dsr