Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Promissory note forgery in Penki Krishnam Naidu vs Majji Srinivasarao on 11 October, 2023Matching Fragments
T.M.R., J
4. (a) In the written statement, the defendant refuted all the plaint averments and contended that he neither borrowed the alleged amount nor signed the alleged suit promissory note; the suit promissory note was fabricated by the plaintiff with the help of his henchman at the instance of his brother Sathyam Naidu; the signature on the alleged promissory note was a clear forgery; he had no necessity to borrow any amounts as alleged in the plaint; the plaintiff cannot advance such huge amounts.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?
(2) Whether the suit promissory note is a rank forgery, thereby, the plaintiff is liable for prosecution.
(3) To what relief?
6. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.5 documents.
14. According to the plaintiff's case, the suit transaction held on 10.02.2009, Exs.B.1 to B.5 documents do not show that the defendant had any disputes or misunderstandings with the plaintiff's brother as on the date of the suit transaction; thereby, it cannot be contended that the plaintiff has no reason to lend such a considerable amount when the defendant had disputes with the plaintiff's brother. The plaintiff is not a party to Exs.B.1 to B.5 documents. The documents relied on by the defendant show that the plaintiff's brother and defendant had disputes regarding mining operations. A plain reading of the aforesaid documents T.M.R., J shows that conflicts emerged between them six months after the suit transaction. The trial court observed that except for self-contradictory evidence, there is no evidence adduced by the defendant to establish the plea of forgery of the signatures on the suit promissory note. Furthermore, the defendant did not take steps to send the Ex.A.1 suit promissory note to the handwriting expert. Still, the trial Court compared the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note with his admitted signatures.