JUDGMENT : Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J. This Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 96 order 41 of C.P.C as against the Judgement and Decree, dated 04.07.2019 passed in OS No.1077 of 2015 on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The plaintiff/respondent herein, earlier filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,80,000/- together with future interest and costs against the defendant i.e., petitioner herein basing on the promissory note, dated 01.08.2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and the defendant are well acquainted with each other and on the request of the defendant, the plaintiff has lent an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the purpose of financial necessities to the defendant. On 01.08.2012, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff, agreeing to pay the interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed a promissory note to repay the same as and when demanded by the plaintiff. The defendant has also handed over the photocopies of the property which was standing in the name of the husband of the defendant as a surety. 4. Further, on the demand of return of amount, the defendant issued a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- vide Cheque bearing No.030496, dated 06.05.2014, however, when the said cheque was presented, the same was dishonoured for the reasons of ‘insufficient funds.’ Inspite of the repeated requests and demands, the defendant failed to pay the said amount. As such, the plaintiff filed the suit and thereafter, the plaintiff has also filed a criminal case vide CC No.59/2018 on the file of XXIV Spl. M.M Court, Erramanzil, Hyderabad against the defendant. 5. Before the trial Court, the defendant has denied the entire pleadings and written statement and contended that the defendant along with plaintiff entered into a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ for running a business in the name and style of Mrs. M.M Court, Erramanzil, Hyderabad against the defendant. 5. Before the trial Court, the defendant has denied the entire pleadings and written statement and contended that the defendant along with plaintiff entered into a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ for running a business in the name and style of Mrs. SVS Eye Needs and both the plaintiff and defendant husband’s used to take care of the business as such, the defendant's husband gave a blank signed promissory note and cheques to the husband of the plaintiff for day to day business transaction and for the security purpose but the promissory note was materially altered, as such the defendant pleaded that the promissory note is not binding on the defendant and prayed the trial Court to dismiss the suit. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant and defendant’s husband are family friends and out of such acquaintance, the defendant and her husband approached plaintiff and requested for loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Further the defendant agreed for execution of promissory note in favour of plaintiff for the said amount and also agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. payable on demand to plaintiff. Thereafter, after several requests the defendant agreed to repay the said amount and on 06.05.2014, the defendant husband issued cheque bearing No.030496, dated 06.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, and the said cheque was presented, but the cheque get dishonoured with endorsement “insufficient funds”. Aggrieved the same, plaintiff prefer suit. 7. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues for consideration: “1. Whether the promissory note is materially altered? 2. Whether the suit promissory note is true, legal, validly supported by consideration and executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff as prayed? 3. Whether there is any nexus between the suit of the plaintiff and the business partnership if any entered into by the plaintiff's husband and run by the defendant in the name and style of M/s. SVS Eye Needs, under a MOU dt 14.10.2009? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claimed amount against the defendant? 5. To what extent?” 8. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claimed amount against the defendant? 5. To what extent?” 8. During the course of the enquiry, to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has got examined PW Nos.1 to 3, i.e., PW 1, who is the plaintiff and PW.2- K.Srinivasa and PW.3- P Srinivasa Reddy, and marked Ex.A1 to A7. On behalf of defendant Ex.B1 and B2 were marked. 9. After considering the entire evidence placed and after going into the merits of the case, the learned trial Court disbelieved the version of the defendant and held that there is no material alteration and came to conclusion that as the defendant did not produce any cogent evidence to disprove the contents of the plaintiff, as such, it held that the suit promissory note is valid and binding on the defendant and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the defendant. 10. The present suit is preferred by the appellant/defendant on the following among the other grounds that the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit basing on assumptions and presumption and the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the suit debt is not proved by the plaintiff by filing the documents evidencing the loan transaction. The trial Court ought to have seen that the defendant had categorically explained the circumstances under which the promissory note, cheques were obtained by the husband of the plaintiff from the defendant for the purpose of security and that no consideration of any nature was parted between the parties nor there was any intention to pay the money thereof either in discharge of any debt. 11. Learned counsel for the defendant further submitted that the plaintiff had specially averted in the plaint that she had arranged loan amount by pledging the gold ornaments in a private bank, however, no such documents are filed in the suit and the plaintiff had specifically averred that the amount was lent to the defendant in the presence of witnesses and the defendant had executed the promissory note in the presence of witness, but no such witness who are signatory to the alleged promissory note were examined. 12. 12. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that the Cheque was issued on behalf of SVS Eye needs, however, SVS Eye needs was not made a party to the suit, therefore the suit itself was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties and further contended that the alleged promissory note was materially altered and no reliance could have been placed on the altered promissory note, more particularly in view of the categorical stand of the defendant, that no consideration was parted between the parties and further submitted that the criminal case filed by the plaintiff against the defendant ended in acquittal as there was no enforceable debt proved by the plaintiff. 13. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that there is a categorical admission of the plaintiff in respect of Exs.B1 and B2 and that the trial Court did not consider the entire oral and documentary evidence placed by the defendants and decreed the suit without any basis and prayed this Court to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allow the present appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent herein submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the trial Court Tribunal has rightly allowed the suit and came to a conclusion that the said promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and obligate the defendant to repay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which needs no interference. 15. Heard, Sri P.Pandu Ranga Reddy , learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and Sri Mudumbi Rangaswamy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the material on record. 16. The points which arose for consideration before this Court in this appeal are that: “1) whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as prayed by the defendant? 2)Whether the trial Court erred in decreed the suit? 3) If so to what extent?” 17. Admittedly, the suit is filed by the seeking the recovery of amount of Rs.8,80,000/- from the defendant against the promissory note which said set to have executed by the defendant. 18. 2)Whether the trial Court erred in decreed the suit? 3) If so to what extent?” 17. Admittedly, the suit is filed by the seeking the recovery of amount of Rs.8,80,000/- from the defendant against the promissory note which said set to have executed by the defendant. 18. On perusal of the entire case, the case of the defendant is that, the defendant though admitting the execution of the promissory note and also issuance of the cheque in favour of the plaintiff, but there was ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ between the parties, that the husband of the defendant who was looking day to day transaction of ‘M/s. SVS Eye Need’ and in the course of the business, the plaintiff said to have obtained blank signed promissory note and cheques from the defendant for the purpose of using them to offer security to the person who are interested to invest in their firm and in view of the cordial relationship between the plaintiff husband and the defendant as there was no occasion for the defendant to suspect the conduct behaviour of the plaintiff husband. 19. On perusal on the Ex.A1 i.e., copy of cheque No.030496, dated 06.05.2014, no doubt when the said cheque was presented before the bank, the said cheque was dishonoured, thereafter legal notice was issued under Ex.B3 and the same was served under Ex.A5. The plaintiff besides the oral contentions has also placed the certified copy of the promissory note, dated 01.08.2012 which was executed by defendant and the plaintiff claimed that the said promissory note was executed after plaintiff have given cash of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loan to the defendant on 01.08.2012. 20. Further in support of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and PW.2 - who is the husband of plaintiff has categorally stated that the promissory note was executed in favour of plaintiff for the loan taken by the defendant for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. PW3 has also categorically stated that the M/s.SVS Eye Needs was registered in the year 2014, as such entering into Memorandum of Understanding with the ‘M/s.SVS Eye Need’ in the 2009 does not arise. 21. PW3 has also categorically stated that the M/s.SVS Eye Needs was registered in the year 2014, as such entering into Memorandum of Understanding with the ‘M/s.SVS Eye Need’ in the 2009 does not arise. 21. Further, the case of the defendant that the defendant issued the blank promissory note duly signed but it was later filled at a later point of time, the law being settled in this aspect is that, once any blank promissory note issued duly signing the same, it automatically extends the power to the holder of the said promissory note to giving authorization to fill the same. In this regard, it is necessary to extract the Section 20 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the same is reproduced for better understanding: 20. Inchoate stamped instruments.— “Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written t0hereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.” 22. The plaintiff has examined PW.2 who said to be witness to the execution of the promissory note and the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant and also the there is no Memorandum of understanding being produced neither in the trial Court nor in this Court the substantiate the claim that there was a nexus between the alleged Memorandum in Understanding and promissory note and also failed to produce any documents to prove that the defendant has given blank cheque for security to the plaintiff. 23. 23. Therefore, it is clearly evident from the record that the defendant has executed the promissory note which was also not denied by the defendant and no substantial documentary evidence was placed that the said promissory note was issued only for the purpose of security as part of alleged Memorandum of understanding. 24. In view of the above observation, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court having considered the entire oral and documentary evidence has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and this Court after appreciating the entire material placed, did not see any grounds to interfere nor find fault with the finding the judgment of the trial Court. For the said reasons, the appeal of the appellants falls to the ground and appeal deserves to be and liable to be dismissed. 25. In the result, CCCA is dismissed with costs confirming the Judgement and Decree passed by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad , dated 04.07.2019 in OS No.1077 of 2015. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.