THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.630 of 2011 July 19, 2011 Between: Narapureddi Suryaprakasa Rao, S/o.Rama Rao ... Appellant And Medavarapu Lakshmi, W/o.Jagannadham ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.630 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.709 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The suit was filed by the respondent (hereafter, the plaintiff) for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,01,506/- was dismissed by the trial Court on 14.3.2007. However, in A.S.No.155 of 2007 the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada reversed the same, by judgment dated 09.3.2011, aggrieved by which the defendant preferred the instant second appeal. The plaintiff alleged as follows. The defendant borrowed Rs.1,19,000/- from the plaintiff for family expenses on 09.2.2002. He executed promissory note, Ex.A1, on the same day agreeing to repay the borrowed amount with interest at 12% per annum. Repeated demands were failed and, therefore, the suit for recovery of the money. The defendant opposed the suit. In his statement, he alleged that he obtained an amount of Rs.19,000/- from Medavarapu Parvathi, W/o.Venkateswarlu, and at that time she obtained his signatures on printed blank promissory notes affixed with stamps. When he demanded for promissory note after he made the payment, she gave a photocopy of the printed blank promissory note to him stating that the original promissory note was misplaced. She also gave a receipt to the effect that she will not claim the amount in future and that the plaintiff made use of the signed blank promissory note, converted it into a promissory note by altering the amount to Rs.1,19,000/- adding the figure ‘1,’ before ’19,000/-’ and filed the suit. The trial Court framed an issue as to whether the suit promissory note-Ex.A1 is true. Another issue was also framed as to whether the suit promissory note is fabricated. Giving importance to Ex.B1 photocopy of the promissory note allegedly executed by the defendant in favour of Parvathi, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the Ex.A1 was fabricated making use of the one executed by the defendant in favour of Parvathi, who is none other than the co- daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. The appellate Court, relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, came to the conclusion that Ex.A1 is proved and that it does not suffer from any material alteration, and accordingly reversed the judgment of the trial Court duly decreeing the suit. The Counsel for the defendant has placed before this Court photocopy of promissory note-Ex.A1 in support of the contention that when there is alteration of the promissory note, the same is void and based on the same, the decree could not have been passed by the trial Court. A bare perusal, with naked eye, of Ex.A1 promissory note does not lend any support to the petitioner. Further on the top of Ex.A1 below the title “promissory note” on the left side the figure ‘1,19,000/-’ is written showing ‘1’ nearer to the word ‘Rs.’. The same does not lend any support because in the body of the promissory note there is no such material alternation and it is not possible to accept that the amount ‘Rs.19,000/-’ was materially altered by adding ‘1,’ before ’19,000/-’. The first appellate Court correctly considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as Ex.A1 and came to the conclusion that the plea of the defendant remained unproved. It is a question of fact and a substantial question of law does not arise in this second appeal. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) July 19, 2011 YS