Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. To substantiate the Ex.A.1 promissory note transaction, the Plaintiff himself examined as PW.1. Additionally, he examined PW.2 (M. Hanumantha Reddy), the attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note. The defendant himself examined as D.W.1.

17. The defendant contends that Ex.A1, the promissory note in question, is a forgery one and asserts that no consideration was exchanged under it, nor were any demands made on the defendant. The defendant further contends that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the promissory note is not a forgery. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that the suit promissory note transaction held in his father-in-law's house at Somalapuram Village and Hanumantha Reddy (P.W.2) and one Basireddy (scribe of Ex.A1) were present and Hanumantha Reddy attested as a witness on Ex.A1. P.W.2-M. Hanumantha Reddy, who is the attestor of Ex.A1 suit promissory note, supported the suit transaction by deposing that in his presence suit transaction took place and the defendant received the consideration amount.

20. The trial court observed that since there were no disputes between the defendant, plaintiff, and Basireddy, the scribe, the defendant's claim of forgery regarding the suit promissory note could not be sustained. The trial court appreciated the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 and concluded that the defendant had executed Ex.A1 upon receiving the consideration amount. The 1st Appellate Court also reviewed the evidence, noting that it compared the defendant's signature on the Vakalat and Written Statement, both of which were admitted by D.W.1 during cross-examination, with the signature on Ex.A1. The Court concluded that the signature on Ex.A1 matched the defendant's signature. The defendant had not sought to refer the matter to a handwriting expert for comparison. Thus, the 1st Appellate Court, after evaluating the evidence, confirmed that the defendant had indeed executed Ex.A1 promissory note upon receiving the consideration.