Judgment reserved on 22-04-2026 Judgment pronounced on 28-04-2026 Judgment uploaded on 28-04-2026 APHC010524072022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 437/2022 Between: Velagala Venkata Reddy ...APPELLANT AND Jatavallavbhula Hari Jagannadh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. N SIVA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 VGKR, J. SA_437_2022 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 25-02-2022 in A.S.No. 152 of 2018 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – cum – X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram (for short, 'the appellate Court'), confirming the decree and judgment dated 06-04-2018 in O.S.No. 691 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No. 691 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No. 691 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court for recovery of money from the defendant on the foot of a promissory note dated 27-04-2009. 4. The trial Court, after conclusion of trial, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed appeal in A.S.No. 152 of 2018 on the file of the appellate Court. The appellate Court dismissed the first appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit. 3 VGKR, J. SA_437_2022 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No. 691 of 2011, is as follows: The defendant along with his mother late Jatavallabhula Subhadra jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 27-04-2009 at Rajamahendravaram for the purpose of their family expenses and discharge of sundry debts. The defendant and his mother jointly executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date agreeing to repay the said sum together with interest @ 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant and his mother did not choose to discharge the said debt and simply postponed the same on one pretext or the other by giving most evasive replies. The plaintiff came to know that the mother of the defendant passed away in July, 2010, leaving behind the defendant as her legal-heir. The father of the defendant predeceased his mother. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 7. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows: The defendant and his mother have no acquaintance with the plaintiff and they never borrowed any amount from him. The suit promissory note is fabricated by forging their signatures. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend such a huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and he is set up by one Madireddy Veerraju of Madiki who suffered an order of eviction at the hands of the 4 VGKR, J. SA_437_2022 defendant and his mother in A.T.C.No. 1 of 2005 on the file of learned Tenancy Tribunal at Alamur of East Godavari District. The mother of the defendant in or about the year 2000 used to write letters to the said Veerraju regarding her house and land at Madiki and about the rents payable by him to her. Taking advantage of the availability of those signatures of the defendant and his mother, the said Veerraju brought the suit promissory note into existence in the name of the plaintiff, who is his close associate, by forging their signatures in collusion with the alleged attesters and the scribe to wreck vengeance as he was unsuccessful in the tenancy matter referred to above. 8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: "(i) Whether the suit promissory note dated 27-04-2009 is true, correct and supported by consideration? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for? (iii) To what relief?" 9. During the course of trial before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B19, Exs.X1 and X2 and Exs.C1 to C68 were marked. 5 VGKR, J. SA_437_2022 10. The trial Court, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the aforesaid suit filed the appeal suit in A.S.No. 152 of 2018 on the file of the appellate Court, wherein the following points came up for consideration: "(i) Whether the appellant/defendant has established any ground for interfering with the impugned decree and judgment dated 06-04-2018 in O.S.No. 691 of 2011 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram? (ii) To what relief?" 11. The appellate Court, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the appellant-plaintiff and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff in O.S.No. 691 of 2011 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. Heard Sri Palla Balu Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff, and Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant. 13. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil 6 VGKR, J. SA_437_2022 Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.') could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies the Court that substantial question of law between the parties arises in the case. A proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. In Boodireddy Chandraiah Vs. Arigela Laxmi1, the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of High Court to investigate grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely, the first appellate Court. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. Where the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. Mere appreciation of facts, documentary evidence and contents of documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. 14. The plaintiff having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of C.P.C., it is for him to meet the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law. 1 (2007) 8 SCC 155 7 VGKR, J. SA_437_2022 15. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts below. Therefore, the grounds urged in the second appeal are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellant has shown any substantial question of law. The contention of appellant is that the decree and judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are contrary to law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decrees and judgments passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. 16. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 691 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court. The plaintiff instituted the above suit for recovery of money from the defendant. The case of the appellant herein is that the respondent-defendant and his mother jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from him on 27-04-2009 at Rajamahendravaram for the purpose of family expenses and also discharge of sundry debts and they have executed a joint promissory note in his favour. To prove the same, the appellant relied on Ex.A1 suit promissory note. The defendant contended in the written statement itself that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the suit promissory note is a forged document and the same was brought into existence by one Madireddi Veerraju who suffered an order of eviction at the hands of the defendant and his mother in A.T.C.No. 1 of 2005 on the file of learned Tenancy Tribunal at Alamur of East Godavari District. 8 VGKR, J. SA_437_2022 17. The defendant specifically denied the execution of the alleged suit promissory note. Therefore, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note. In order to prove Ex.A1 promissory note, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.1 is the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff filed the chief affidavit of one Karri Narayana Reddy as P.W.3, his evidence is eschewed by the trial Court. To prove Ex.A1 suit promissory note, the plaintiff failed to examine its attesters. The plaintiff got examined the scribe of the suit promissory note as P.W.2. P.W.1 was cross-examined by learned counsel appearing for the defendant before the trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant before the trial Court had shown some photographs to the plaintiff in his cross-examination and asked him to identify the photographs of the mother of the defendant but the plaintiff failed to identify the mother of the defendant. Moreover, even as per the own evidence of P.W.1, he had no much acquaintance with the defendant and his mother prior to the suit transaction. 18. On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the trial Court pointed out some suspicious circumstances which were surrounded on the alleged execution of Ex.A1 promissory note. Even as per the case of the plaintiff, he is not having much acquaintance with the borrowers and even he does not know the address particulars of the borrowers and without ascertaining the address particulars of the borrowers, as per the own case of the plaintiff, he lent an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant and his mother which is not a small amount in those days in the year 2009. 9 VGKR, J. SA_437_2022 19. As per the own evidence of P.W.1, he is not having any acquaintance with the attesters and the scribe of the suit promissory note prior to Ex.A1 and that the attesters and the scribe were brought by the defendant and his mother. P.W.2, who is the scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note, also failed to identify the mother of the defendant and also asserts that he cannot identify the defendant at present and he is not having any acquaintance with the defendant and his mother prior to Ex.A1 transaction. As noticed supra, as per the own evidence of P.W.1, both the attesters and the scribe were brought by the defendant and his mother and that he is not having any acquaintance with the defendant which is quite contrary to the evidence of P.W.2. Bothe the Courts below, by considering the aforesaid circumstances, had drawn suspicious circumstances on the alleged execution of Ex.A1 promissory note. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 is not convincing to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note. 20. To discharge his burden, the respondent-defendant himself got examined as D.W.1, examined his employer as D.W.2 and also got examined the doctor who treated the mother of the defendant as D.W.3. The respondent relied on the evidence of D.W.4-handwriting expert who examined the disputed signatures on Ex.A1 with that of the admitted signatures of the defendant and his mother and the report and the opinion given by him were marked as Exs.X1 and X2 respectively. As per the evidence of D.W.4, he has examined the disputed signatures of the defendant and his mother on Ex.A1 and compared with the admitted signatures of the defendant and his mother 10 VGKR, J. SA_437_2022 and found that the disputed signatures do not belong to the persons who signed on Ex.A1 promissory note. He further opined that he did not find even any single similarity or commonality between the admitted and the disputed signatures. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff placed reliance on a case law rendered in Fakhruddin Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh2. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case law is that the opinion of a handwriting expert can never be conclusive because it is after all opinion evidence. No doubt the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law is not in dispute. As noticed supra, there are several strong suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged execution of Ex.A1 promissory note. Even as per the own evidence of the lender-P.W.1, he is not having any acquaintance with the borrowers and even he does not know the address particulars of the borrowers and he also failed to identify the mother of the defendant in the photographs shown by learned counsel for the defendant in cross-examination before the trial Court. Since the defendant is disputing the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note, the initial burden rests upon the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by producing cogent evidence. As noticed supra, even as per the own evidence of P.W.2, he is not having any acquaintance with the defendant. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the scribe and the attesters were brought by the defendant which is quite contrary to the evidence of P.W.2. 2 MANU/SC/0332/1966 11 VGKR, J. SA_437_2022 22. On considering the aforesaid suspicious circumstances surrounded on the alleged execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and also on considering the evidence of D.W.4 and his report, I am of the considered view that the appellant-plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and also borrowing of the amount by the defendant and his mother from him. Both the Courts below on appreciation of entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that Ex.A1 promissory note is not at all a genuine document and it is not legally proved by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has also placed reliance on two case laws rendered in State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and others3; and Murarilal Vs. State of M.P.4 The ratios laid down in the aforesaid two case laws are relating to criminal cases for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the facts and circumstances in the two case laws cited supra are much different to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 23. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the issues/points against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and 3 MANU/SC/0416/1992 4 MANU/SC/0189/1979 12 VGKR, J. SA_437_2022 there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court as per Section 100 of C.P.C. The questioned raised, strictly speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law. 24. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the decrees and judgments of both the Courts below. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs. __________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. Date: 28.04.2026 JSK 13 VGKR, J. SA_437_2022 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 437 OF 2022 DATE: 28TH APRIL, 2026 JSK