1

  NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2057  OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.30951 of 2008)

lTATIPAMULA NAGA RAJU .....APPELLANT.

VERSUS

PATTEM  

PADMAVATHI .....RESPONDENT.

l              J U D G M E N T

lANIL R. DAVE, J  .

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Second Appeal

2

No.587 of 2008 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the  

defendant (appellant herein)  has filed this appeal.

3. For  the  sake  of  convenience,  parties  to  the  

litigation have been described as arrayed  in the trial  

court.   

4. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff (respondent  

herein)  

for  

recovery  

of  

Rs.1,90,000/- from the defendant, who is the appellant  

herein,  with  interest  and  the  claim  was  based  on  a  

promissory note, which was alleged to have been executed  

by the defendant for Rs.1,25,000/-.

5. The  trial  court  dismissed  the  suit  in  the  

circumstances stated hereinbelow:

3

6. The  case  of  the  plaintiff  was  that  a  sum  of  

Rs.1,25,000/- had been borrowed by the defendant and the  

defendant had, therefore, executed a Promissory note for  

Rs.1,25,000/-  on  18th September,  2001.   In  spite  of  

demand,  as the amount was not repaid, the plaintiff was  

constraint to file Original Suit No.933 of  2003 for  

recovery  

of  the  

said  

amount  

along  

with  

interest  

thereon.

7. The  case  of  the  defendant  was  that  though  the  

Promissory note had been executed by him, no amount was  

payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.  According to  

the defendant, he had borrowed Rs.1,25,000/- from the  

son of the plaintiff,  namely Pattem Nanaji Sanker @  

Nanaji.   According  to  the  defendant,  four  Promissory

4

notes had been executed by him.  One Promissory note was  

for Rs.50,000/- and three Promissory notes were for Rs.  

25,000/-  each.    The  defendant  was  having  financial  

difficulties and, therefore, he could not pay the said  

amount to Nanaji but with the help of certain mediators,  

he had settled the dues with  Nanaji for Rs.90,000/- and  

paid the same to him.   

8. Upon  

payment  

of  

Rs.90,000/- by the defendant in full settlement of his  

dues, Nanaji ought to have returned the aforestated four  

Promissory notes to the defendant but he returned only  

three Promissory notes and did not return one Promissory  

note for Rs.25,000/-, as he had misplaced the same and  

he promised that he would return the  said promissory  

note for Rs. 25,000/- as and when he would find it.

5

9. According to the defendant, the plaintiff had used  

the said fourth Promissory note of Rs.25,000/- which had  

been given by the defendant to Nanaji.  According to the  

defendant, by adding a figure ‘1’ before ‘Rs.25,000/-’  

the plaintiff had made an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from  

Rs.25,000/-. The plaintiff had taken undue advantage by  

interpolating  figure  ‘1’   before  ‘25,000/-’  because  

Rs.25,000/- had not been written in words.

10. Thus, according to the case of the defendant, no  

amount  was  payable  by  him  to  the  plaintiff  but  the  

plaintiff had misused the Promissory note given by him  

to  Nanaji  by  interpolating  figure  ‘1’  before  figure

6

‘25,000’.

11. At the time of trial, hand-writing expert, DW-4 had  

been  examined,  who  stated  that  figure  ‘1’  had  been  

interpolated  in  the  Promissory  note  whereby   figure  

‘25,000/-’   was made ‘1,25,000/-’.

12. The  

hand-

writing  

expert  

was  of  

the said  

opinion  

for  the  

reason  

that he could show that space between figure ‘1’ and ‘2’  

was not regular and the entire figure of Rs.1,25,000/-  

was not written in one line.   Figure ‘1’,  which was  

added subsequently  was not in the same line of  Rs.  

25,000/-.   His report was accepted by the trial court  

and after considering the evidence,  more particularly

7

the evidence of the hand-writing expert, the trial court  

came to the conclusion that the Promissory note,  which  

had been executed for Rs.25,000/- was tampered with by  

the  plaintiff  by  adding  figure  ‘1’  so  as  to  make  

Rs.1,25,000/-.  

13.  The trial court also discussed the evidence led by  

the  

mediators  i.e.  DW-2  and  DW-3,  in  whose  presence  the  

defendant had settled his dues with Nanaji, the son of  

the plaintiff.  The suit was, therefore, dismissed.

14. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the  

plaintiff had filed an appeal,  being Appeal Suit No.346  

of 2006 which had been allowed by the learned Additional  

District  and  Sessions  Judge  (Fast  Track  Court)

8

Vijayawada.  The appeal was allowed because the lower  

appellate court put more stress on the execution of the  

Promissory  note  which  had  been  admitted  by  the  

defendant.  Moreover, the lower appellate court was of  

the  view  that  if  the  dues  had  been  settled,  the  

defendant would not have permitted Nanaji to retain one  

Promissory note  for Rs.25,000/-  In the circumstances,  

the  

appeal  

was  

allowed  

and  the  

suit was  

decreed  

with  

costs  

for Rs.1,90,000/- with  interest thereon.

15. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal,  

the defendant filed Second Appeal No. 587 of 2008 in the  

High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the said appeal was  

dismissed  by  the  High  Court  because  no  substantial

9

question of law was  involved in the appeal.

16. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  and  have  

considered the judgments of all the three courts.

17. After careful  consideration,  we are of the view  

that  the  trial  court  had  properly  appreciated  the  

evidence,  especially the evidence of the hand-writing  

expert  –  DW-4.   Upon  perusal  of  the  discussion  of  

evidence  in  the  judgment,  it  is  clear  that  in  the  

opinion  of  the  expert,  figure  ‘1’  had  been  written  

subsequently before ‘25,000/-’ in the Promissory note.  

The trial court rightly appreciated the evidence of the  

mediators, in  whose presence the dues of the defendant

10

had been settled and Nanaji, son of the plaintiff was  

paid  Rs.90,000/-  in  full  settlement  of  Rs.1,25,000/-  

borrowed by the defendant from Nanaji. The defendant had  

admitted the earlier transactions which he had with the  

son of the plaintiff.  In our opinion, the evidence of  

the  mediators  and  hand-writing  expert  was  duly  

considered and appreciated by the trial court and the  

trial  

court  

had come  

to  a  

right  

conclusion.   There  was  absolutely  no  reason  for  the  

lower  appellate  court  to  arrive  at  a  different  

conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial court.  

We  are,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  the  findings  

arrived at by the trial court are absolutely correct and  

no  justifiable  reasons  have  been  given  by  the  lower  

appellate court for arriving at a different conclusion.

11

18. In our opinion,  simply because the defendant had  

fairly admitted his signature, the court should not have  

come to the conclusion that the amount was payable by  

the  defendant  especially  when  there  was  an  expert’s  

evidence that figure ‘1’ was added so as to make the  

figure  1,25,000/-  from  figure  25,000/-  and  when  the  

mediators had deposed to the   effect that there were  

transactions between  the  defendant and the  son of the  

plaintiff  and  in  pursuance  of  the  said  transaction,  

Promissory notes were executed by the defendant and one  

of  the  Promissory  notes  was  not  returned  to  the  

defendant.   The  explanation  given  by  the  defendant,  

which was supported by ample evidence, ought to have

12

considered by the lower appellate court and the lower  

appellate court should not have been guided by a mere  

fact that the defendant had admitted execution of the  

Promissory  note.   In  our  opinion,  in  such  a  set  of  

circumstances,  the  defendant  ought  not  to  have  been  

saddled with a liability to pay the amount in pursuance  

of  the  tampered  Promissory  note  for  which  no  

consideration had ever passed from the plaintiff to the  

defendant.

19. As  the  High  Court  did  not  find  any  substantial  

question  of  law,   it  did  not  entertain  the  second  

appeal.

13

20. For the aforestated reasons, we are in agreement  

with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court and,  

therefore, we set aside the order passed by the High  

Court as well as the order passed by the lower appellate  

court and restore the order passed by the trial court  

whereby the suit had been dismissed.   

21. The  

appeal  

is  

allowed  

accordingly but without any order as to costs.      

………………......................J.                                    (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

                         .............................J.  (ANIL R. DAVE)

New Delhi February  24,  2011

14