THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.845 OF 2011 Date:30.09.2011 Between: Namadi Pallaiah .. Appellant And Lanka Sathyavathi .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.845 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful defendant in the Courts below is the appellant. The plaintiff’s suit being O.S.No.441 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, for recovery of money was decreed on 16.08.2003. The appellant was unsuccessful in A.S.No.50 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, aggrieved by which, the present Second Appeal is filed. The sole respondent instituted the suit alleging that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.47,000/- from her executing a promissory note – Ex.A1 dated 28.09.2000, but in spite of demand, he did not pay the amount. The appellant filed written statement raising the plea of forgery and material alteration of the column as 18.11.1999 instead of 18.11.1991 and that he never borrowed the amount. During the trial, the respondent examined as P.W.1 and proved the promissory note. Her version was supported by the attestor - P.W.2. In rebuttal, the lone witness was the appellant himself. Considering the evidence especially the admission of the appellant as D.W.1 that the respondent’s husband obtained signatures on blank promissory note and white papers, the trial Court rejected the theory of forgery and applied the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The suit was accordingly decreed. The appellate Court again considered the evidence and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the approach of the trial Court in determining the genuineness of the alleged signatures of the appellant without the assistance of a handwriting expert is grave error giving rise to a question of law. Reliance is placed on Ajit Savant Majagavai v State of Karnataka[1]. The submission of the appellant is devoid of merit. There is no dispute that though a plea of forgery was raised in the written statement, the appellant did not seek the indulgence of the trial Court to send the disputed signatures on Ex.A1 to handwriting expert. Further, as noticed by the trial Court, D.W.1 admitted that his signatures were obtained by the husband of the respondent on blank promissory note and white papers. Therefore, the principle in Ajit Savant would have no application. Further, there is no law which requires the trial Court suo motu seek the assistance of an expert. The principle in Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would apply. The burden is always on the person to prove a disputed fact in issue otherwise he or she would fail in his/her endeavours to prove the allegations. Viewed from any angle, the judgments of both the Courts below would not give rise to any question of law. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 30.09.2011 KH [1] (1997) 7 SCC 110 : 1997 Cri LJ 3964