Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 431 (AP)

K. Bajari Reddy v. S. S. Sreenivasa Reddy

2011-06-13

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2011
Judgment : 1. The respondent filed O.S.No.167 of 2004 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs.89,820/- on the strength of a promissory note, dated 23.09.2001. It was alleged that the appellant borrowed the said amount for his necessities, executed a promissory note for repayment thereof, but did not pay the amount in spite of repeated demands. Reference was made to the notice got issued by the respondent and the reply by the appellant. 2. The appellant filed a written statement denying the execution of the promissory note. It was urged that the father of the respondent is known to the appellant and there used to be transactions between them, and taking advantage of the same, the respondent brought into existence, the promissory note. He has also stated that he never put his signature in English, whereas the promissory note was fabricated with an English signature. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment, dated 06.08.2007. The respondent filed A.S.No.89 of 2007 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. The appeal was allowed on 19.10.2010. Hence, this second appeal. 4. Sri B.Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the respondent failed to prove the execution of the promissory note and that the finding of the trial Court based upon voluminous documentary evidence was reversed by the lower appellate Court, without any basis. The learned counsel further submits that the oral and documentary evidence clinchingly proved that the appellant never put his signature in English and still the lower appellate Court decreed the suit. 5. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: (1)Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant? (2)Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by cash consideration? (3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for? 6. On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B8 were filed. The suit was dismissed, but the appeal was allowed. Thereby, the suit came to be decreed. 7. The principal area of controversy was as to whether the promissory note Ex.A1, dated 23.09.2001, is proved. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B8 were filed. The suit was dismissed, but the appeal was allowed. Thereby, the suit came to be decreed. 7. The principal area of controversy was as to whether the promissory note Ex.A1, dated 23.09.2001, is proved. The respondent pleaded necessary ingredients for recovery of amount covered by the promissory note. Ex.A2 is legal notice and Ex.A4 is acknowledgement therefor. The reply given by the appellant is marked as Ex.A5. 8. The case of the appellant was the one of denial. He stated that he never put his signature in English, whereas the promissory note contained a signature in English. To buttress his contention, he got summoned certain documents from a Cooperative Society, in which the appellant is said to have put his signatures on quite good number of pages. The relevant signatures on various documents marked as Exs.B1 to B7 were taken note of. 9. The question as to whether an individual puts his signature in a particular manner, cannot be decided solely on the basis of the signatures put by that very individual at various places and on different occasions. Given an intention to retract from a document, an individual can choose to put the signature in a manner different from which he puts in the usual course. The difference can be as to the pattern, or in some cases, the language itself. As long as the person is capable of writing in different versions, the mere fact that there is a difference between various signatures of that very individual cannot, by itself, be a factor to doubt the execution of a document. 10. Take for instance, the case where an individual knows to write or sign in English as well as Telugu. If, with a deliberate intention he puts his signature in one language, though in the usual course of business, he puts the signature in a different language, he cannot wriggle out himself from the obligation even by proof of the difference of signature. In such cases, the only way through which the signatory of a document can prove his contention is by taking steps under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. In such cases, the only way through which the signatory of a document can prove his contention is by taking steps under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. An expert of handwriting would be in a position to give his opinion on the genuinity or otherwise of the signature based upon the nature, pattern and slant of writing of the person concerned. 11. It may be true that in various documents marked in ‘B’ series, the signature of the appellant was found to be in Telugu. That however would not disprove Ex.A1, if the appellant is capable of putting his signature in English also. At any rate, P.Ws.2 and 3, the scribe and the witness of the document have categorically stated that the appellant puts his signature in Ex.A1 and nothing to the contrary was elicited from those witnesses. The lower appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter and no question of law arises for consideration. 12. Though the learned counsel for the appellant made a request that the matter may be remanded, this Court is not inclined to accede to the same, for the reason that no defect is found in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. 13. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.