THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Second Appeal No.810 of 2011 Dated 29th October, 2011 Between: Panguluri Nageshwar Rao …Appellant And Muthavarapu Venkateswar Rao …Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Sri P.Prabhakara Rao Counsel for respondent: Sri K.Lakshmaiah For Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 23.02.2011, in A.S.No.24 of 2008, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet confirming the judgment and decree, dated 04.09.2008, in O.S.No.68 of 2006, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. The appellant is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,72,000/- along with interest at 24% pa from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for family necessities and agricultural expenses, agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 24% pa and executed the suit pronote, that despite several demands, the respondent failed to repay the same and therefore, he has filed the suit for recovery of the suit amount. The appellant filed a written statement, wherein he has inter alia denied execution of the promissory note. He has further pleaded that the respondent is a money lender and he is in the habit of creating documents and filing false suits. The appellant further added by way of manuscript in paragraph-5 that the signature on the suit pronote does not belong to him. The trial Court has framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the suit pronote dated 30.06.2003 is true, valid and binding on defendant? 2. Whether the suit pronote is a forged document? 3. Whether the plaintiff is a professional money lender? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount? 5. To what relief?” In support of his case, the respondent examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2. The appellant examined himself as DW.1 and also examined DWs.2 to 7. While the respondent has marked Ex.A1, promissory note, on his side, the appellant has not adduced any documentary evidence. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court confirmed the said judgment and decree in the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, the appellant filed the present second appeal. At the hearing, Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that both the Courts below have committed serious error of law in decreeing the suit. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant having adduced the evidence of DWs.2 and 3, scribe and attestor respectively, who did not support the case of the respondent, the burden shifted to the respondent to show that the promissory note was executed and consideration was passed and that the respondent having failed to discharge the said burden, the suit ought to have been dismissed. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. It is no doubt true that DW.2 has deposed that he never signed on blank promissory note without stamps, except the suit pronote. But, the trial Court while considering the veracity of the evidence of DW.2 has stated that the latter has not explained the circumstances under which he departed from his normal practice of not signing the pronote with blanks and without stamps. Similarly, while dealing with the evidence of DW.3, attestor, who deposed that when he met the respondent at Kodad, he has signed the suit pronote as an attestor. The trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of DW.3 on the ground that he is no other than the husband of the appellant’s aunt. Coming to the plea of the appellant that his signature was forged, the trial Court has scrutinised his evidence very closely. It has observed that the appellant has denied his own signature on the Vakalat and also the summons and therefore, he is not a truthful witness, whose evidence is not trustworthy. The trial Court also compared the purported signature of the appellant on the suit pronote with his admitted signatures on the written statement, Vakalat and the served summons in coming to the conclusion that the signature of the appellant on Ex.A1, suit pronote, belongs to him. Under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court is vested with the power to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures. On a proper appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court has arrived at the conclusion that the suit pronote is neither fabricated nor signature of the appellant is forged. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the said finding of the trial Court. Except raising the plea that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record, the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law for interference with the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. Appreciation of evidence does not fall within the realm of substantial question of law, unless it is demonstrated that the Courts below made a perverse approach in appreciation of evidence. As the appellant failed to show that any such perverse approach is made by the Courts below in appreciation of evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below. For the above-mentioned reasons, the second appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the second appeal, interim order, dated 29.07.2011, shall stand vacated and S.A.M.P.No.1830 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th October, 2011 VGB