Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. In the written statement, the Defendant refuted the averments in the plaint, asserting that he never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff, let alone Rs.1,00,000/- under the promissory note dated 05.05.1999, which he described as a blatant forgery. He claimed there were disputes with the Plaintiff's father-in-law, Vadapalli Nageswara Rao, who allegedly fabricated the promissory note with the assistance of his associates. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff lacks the financial capacity to lend such a substantial sum. He emphasized that his reply presented the true facts of the matter, contending that there is no truth or bona fides in the Plaintiff's claims, and therefore, the suit should be dismissed with costs.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

i. Whether the suit promissory note is a rank forgery? Ii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for? iii. To what relief?
3

7. During the trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 on behalf of the Plaintiff. Conversely, on behalf of the Defendant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.X.1.

8. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs as prayed for against the Defendant with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.