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
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 annum, 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 1st 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 4 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, 1872.
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 the trial 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.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Js.
8
RRR,J S.A.No.368 of 2025 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO S.A.No.368 of 2025 ____ June, 2025 Js.