Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Katragadda Srinivasa Raghunadha Mohan vs Padala Ravindra Reddy on 27 June, 2025
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
VLil::
APHC010250462025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 368 OF 2025
Appeal Under Section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree
Dated 08.01.2025 made in A.S. No 225 of 2017, on the file of the Court of the
XI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Preferred against the Decree in
O.S.No. 109 of 2013 Dt. 18.09.2017, on the file of the Court of the I Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
Between:
Katragadda Srinivasa Raghunadha Mohan, S/o Satynarayana Rao, aged
about 47 years, R/o D.No 50-80-22, behind Vijaya Medical centre
Santhipuram, Visakhapatnam-16.
...Petitioner
AND
Padala Ravindra Reddy, S/o Satyanarayana Reddy, aged about 44 years,
R/o D.No 1-74, Vemulavalasa village, Anandapuram Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District.
...Respondent
Coun°sel for the Petitioner: KUNTAMUKKALA SAI SREE SANJAY
Counsel for the Respondent
The Court made the following order:
APHC010250462025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3206]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.368 of 2025
Between:
Katragadda Srinivasa Raghunadha Mohan ...APPELLANT
AND
Padala Ravindra Reddy ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1.KUNTAMUKKALA SAI SREE SANJAY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following Judgment:
Heard Sri K.S.S. Sanjay learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
2. The respondent herein, had filed O.S.No.109 of 2013 on the
file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for recovery of
an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per
anhum, on the basis of a demand promissory note dated 20.12.2010. The
suit was for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest.
2
RRR,J
S.A.No.368 of 2025
3.
The case of the respondent was that he had extended a loan
of Rs.4,00,000/- to the appellant herein for his family necessities and had
obtained a demand promissory note dated 20.12.2010, duly executed by
the appellant herein and had to file a suit on account of the refusal of the
appellant in repaying the said amount.
4.
The appellant contended that no such transaction had taken
place between him and the respondent. The appellant contended that the
promissory note, which was marked as Ex.A.1, is a rank forgery and he
has not signed the said promissory note; the fact that the address of the
appellant shown in Ex.A.1- promissory note was not the actual address of
the appellant, is sufficient to show that the promissory note is a fabricated
document; there was no acquaintance between the appellant and the
respondent that money has been advanced by the respondent; the
respondent did not have any ability to extend a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- and
the entire case is at the behest of one Sri Satyanarayana Gupta, who is
examined as PW.3.
5. The trial Court, after completion of trial, during which the
respondent examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked the promissory note as
Ex.A.1 and the appellant had examined himself as DW.1, had allowed the
suit by way of judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017. Aggrieved by the
said judgment and decree, the appellant moved A.S.No.225 of 2017,
before the XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same
\
\
3
RRR,J
S.A.No.368 of 2025
came to be dismissed on 08.01.2025. Aggrieved by the said judgment of
the appellate Court, the appellant has moved the present second appeal.
6.
Sri K. S. S. Sanjay learned counsel appearing for the
appellant had drawn the attention of this Court to the defenses raised by
the appellant, as mentioned above, and contended that both the trial
Court and the appellate Court had misdirected themselves on facts and
also on law.
7.
The learned counsel for the appellant, had specifically
contended that even though the application of the appellant for sending
the signature on the disputed promissory note for comparison with the
signatures of the appellant, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence'Act,
1872, had been dismissed, both the trial Court and the appellate Court
are under a duty, under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
(Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and the said task
was not undertaken by the trial Court and the Appellate Court and
consequently, the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the
appellate Court require to be set aside.
8.
The 1®* contention of the appellant was that the disputed
promissory note, marked as Ex.A.1, is a rank forgery as he has not
signed the document.
9. The respondent examined himself as PW.1, the attestors as
PWs.2 and 3, and the scribe of Ex.A.1 as PW.4. PW.1, in the course of
RRR,J
S.A.No.368 of 2025
cross-examination, had stated that the address in the promissory note
was included on the basis of the instructions given by the appellant. The
Courts below noted that there was
no cross-examination in this regard,
while PW.4, the scribe of the document was in the witness box. Both the
Courts had, thereupon, accepted the version of the respondent, as PW.1,
that the address written in the disputed promissory note was the address
given by the appellant himself. Nothing further has been shown to this
Court to disagree with the said finding.
10.
The appellant contended that the respondent did not have
the ability to advance a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of his financial
condition. The trial Court and the appellate Court observed that the facts
that have been elicited either by the respondent or the appellant were that
the respondent had a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- from his business,
an actual income of Rs.90,000/- from his agricultural land. Further the
Courts also noticed that there was a suggestion by the appellant to PW.3
that the respondent was also doing the business of daily finance. Taking
these facts into account, both the Courts below negetived this contention
of the appellant.
11.
The appellant contended that the respondent and the
appellant were strangers to each other and as such there would be no
occasion for the respondent to advance a loan of Rs.4,00,000/-. The
defense of the appellant also included a contention that Sri Satyanarana
5
RRR,J
S.A.No.368 of 2025
Gupta, who was subsequently examined as PW.3, as one of the attestors
to the promissory note, had a dispute with him and had put up the
respondent as a person, who had given a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to him.
The appellant also contended that in the course of some transactions, he
had sought to sale a flat belonging to him and had given a Xerox copy of
his title deed to Sri Satyanarayana Gupta to assist him in selling the flat.
The copy of the said title deed contained his signature and the promissory
note was forged by copying such a signature. Both the Courts below also
noticed the stand of the respondent that he had advanced the loan to the
appellant at the behest of Sri Satyanarayana Gupta. On this basis, the
Courts below held that the contention of the appellant that both were
strangers and had no acquaintance with each other, cannot be accepted
as the loan appears to have been advanced to the appellant at the behest
of Sri Satyanarayana Gupta, who is a person known to both the appellant
and the respondent.
12. The appellant contended that his signature on the disputed
promissory note was a forgery as he had not signed the document. To
discharge this burden, the appellant had moved an application, under
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for sending the disputed
promissory note to an expert for comparison. However, the appellant did
not provide any contemporaneous signature towards his admitted
6
RRR,J
S.A.No.368 of 2025
signature of the appellant contained in a public document or any
document which would be acceptable.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the
Xerox copy of a lease agreement signed by the appellant had been
produced before the trial Court and the same was not accepted. Learned
counsel would also contend that once such a document was available it
would be bounden duty of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court to
compare the signature on the Xerox copy with the signature on the
disputed promissory note, under Section 72 of the Indian Evidence Act,
187Z
14. An application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 can be allowed when cotemporaneous signatures, which can be
looked at, are available for comparison with the signatures on the
disputed documents. In the present case, it is the admitted case of the
appellant that no such contemporaneous signatures were produced.
Xerox copies of the signatures can be the basis on which the signatures
can be admitted. Further neither the judgment of theThil Court nor the
appellate Court, record any attempt by the appellant for comparison, by
the Court itself. Even assuming such an attempt had been made, no
comparison would be permissible as no original signature of the appellant
had been placed before the Courts for comparison with the signature on
the disputed document.
7
RRR,J
S.A.No.368 of 2025
15. The view taken by both the trial Court and the appellate
Court, in relation to the above contentions of the appellant, do not, in the
opinion of this Court, require any interference. In any event, no question
of law, much less, substantial question of law arises in the present case.
16. In the circumstances, this second appeal is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- K. TATA RAO /
DEPUTY^REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SEC OFFICER
To
1. The XI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam.
2. The I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
3. One CC to Sri Kuntamukkala Sai Sree Sanjay, Advocate [OPUC]
ii
4. Two CD Copies
RAM
HIGH COURT
DATED;27/06/2025
ORDER
SA NO. 368 OF 2025 dismissing the SECOND APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS