THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No.592/2010 Date of Judgment: 5-8-2011 Between: Allu Kondamma ..Appellant And Bodula Udaya Lakshmi ..Respondent The Court made the following:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No.592 of 2010 Oral Judgment: The unsuccessful defendant in the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court has filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17-3-2010 passed in AS No.345/2006 on the file of VII Additional & Sessions Judge (FTC), Vijayawada, whereunder learned Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree dt. 30-10-2006 passed in OS No.1057/2004 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.199049/-being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt. 30-5-2000 executed by the appellant/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for Rs.100000/-. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the above suit for recovery of Rs.1,99,049/-. The defence of the appellant/defendant is that she is aged about 71 years; she cannot sign smoothly; comparison of signatures on the suit summons will clinchingly prove that the signature on the promissory note is not that of her; in order to harass the defendant, the plaintiff filed a private complaint, in which the plaintiff did not disclose about the suit pronote; there were misunderstanding from the date of lodging of complaint in the year 2000; it is unimaginable that the plaintiff will lend the amount to the defendant; the plaintiff is not having any independent source of income and the suit promissory note is a rank forgery and not supported by any consideration. On the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the suit pronote dt. 30-5-2000 is forged one? 2. To what relief? The plaintiff apart from herself examining as P.W.1 examined four more witnesses, who are the co-employees working in Milk Project at Vijayawada along with the husband of the plaintiff, where son-in-law of the defendant was also working, to prove the execution of pronote dt. 30-5-2000 and marked Exs.A-1-suit pronote; Ex.A-2-office copy of legal notice dt.27-9-2004; Ex.A-3-reply notice dt. 6-10-2004; Ex.A-4-copy of petition in IP No.18/2000 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, and Ex.A-5-bank passbook. On behalf of the defendant, defendant herself examined as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B-1-charge sheet in Cr.No.98/2000 on the file of II Town Police Station filed before II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The trial court upon considering the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the parties, decreed the suit by judgment dt. 30-10-2006. On appeal being filed by the defendant, the lower appellate court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence made available on record confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court stating that during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, no favourable information to disprove the execution of Ex.A-1-pronote was elicited. So also, nothing favourable was elicited from the cross- examination of P.Ws.2 to 5 except making a suggestion that they are the co-employees of the husband of the plaintiff. Once the plaintiff discharged her initial burden that Ex.A-1 pronote was executed by the defendant, legal presumption under Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act comes into operation so as to the passing of consideration under Ex.A-1, the burden will shift on the defendant to disprove that no consideration has been passed under Ex.A-1. Further under Ex.A-4, a copy of the petition in IP filed by the daughter of the defendant, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was shown as indebted to the plaintiff. Added to the same, Ex.A-5-bank pass book shows that the plaintiff had withdrawn a sum of Rs.52,800/- on 28-5-2005. Further she received the death benefits of her husband and she is having one acre of land and a house and getting income by letting out the house. The oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff coupled with Exs.A-4 and A-5 would clinchingly establish that plaintiff is having sufficient capacity to lend the amount to the defendant; the defendant executed suit pronote and consideration was passed under it. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contends that in view of lodging of private complaint covered under Ex.B-1, it is unimaginable for the defendant to borrow the amount from the plaintiff and execute the suit promissory note. Both the courts concurrently held that the plaintiff established the execution of Ex.A-1-pronote by examining herself as P.W.1 and also attestors to the Ex.A-1. The plea was also strengthened by Ex.A-4 insolvency petition filed by the daughter of the defendant against the creditors including the plaintiff herein for adjudication. In the petition, it was shown that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs is indebted to the plaintiff. The findings recorded by the courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and cogent reasons were assigned for coming to such conclusion, which do not suffer from any manifest illegality. Therefore, I do not find any question of law; much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 5-8-2011 kmr