Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1212 (TS)

Ravikanti Srikanth v. Lingampally Linga Rao

2025-10-14

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant under Section 96 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 assailing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.06 of 2013, dated 03.10.2018 by the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. 2. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of money for Rs.9,84,200/- in his favour against the appellant-defendant person and property and to award interest @ 18% per annum on Rs.9,84,200/- from the date of suit till the realization. 3. The parties will be hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant. AVERMENTS IN PLAINT: 4. The defendant is having close acquaintance with the plaintiff and approached him on 09.11.2012, borrowed an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- for his business purpose. The plaintiff is doing Adthi business and the defendant is a resident of Jammikunta Village, runs Private Chits. The defendant having received the above said amount has executed promissory note as a collateral security in favour of the plaintiff on 09.11.2012 undertaking to repay the same with interest @ of Rs.1.50 ps. per hundred i.e., 18% per annum. Promissory note is scribed by A.Shankaraiah (PW.3), P.Kaladhar Rao (PW.4), K.Thirupathi (PW.2) and A.Bhadraiah (PW.5) stood as witnesses and the transaction took place in the house of the plaintiff. The defendant did not repay the amount in spite of the request made by the plaintiff. Plaintiff came to know that the defendant is making efforts to alienate the house property in order to evade the payment, in view of the urgency could not issue the legal notice and directly filed the suit. The defendant is liable to pay the suit amounts due under the pro-note as follows: a) Prl. amount under pronote dated 09.11.2012 Rs. 9,50,000-00 b) Interest Rs. 1.50 ps per month per hundred i.e., 18% per annum from 09.11.2012 to 21.01.2013 i.e., 2 months 12 days. Rs. 34,200-00 Rs. 9,84,200-00 Prayed to decree the suit. WRITTEN STATEMENT: 5. Defendant denied the execution of promissory note dated 09.11.2012 and further contended that the signatures on the promissory note and receipt are forged and fabricated, they do not belong to him and the defendant being literate if he has really taken the amount he would have scribe the promissory note and the receipt but the plaintiff in collusion with his friends has filled up the columns in the printed proforma of the promissory note and receipt. Plaintiff has no license to lend the money and has no financial capacity, prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. The trial Court framed the following Issues: 1. Whether the suit pro-note is truly valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for? 3. To what relief? 7. Plaintiff has amended the plaint and as per the orders in I.A.No.109 of 2015, dated 04.11.2015. As per the amended plaint the date of suit promissory note is 11.09.2012 and the claim is to pass a decree for Rs.10,11,750/- with interest @ 18% per annum on the above said amount and the calculation made by the plaintiff is as under: a) Prl. amount under pronote dated 11.09.2012 Rs. 9,50,000-00 b) Interest @ Rs. 1.50 ps per month per hundred i.e. 18% per annum from 11.09.2012 to 21.01.2013 i.e., 4 months 10 days. Rs. 61,750-00 Rs. 10,11,750-00 8. Defendant has not filed additional written statement to the amended plaint. 9. The learned Trial Court has recasted the issues as under: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for? 2. To what relief? 10. Plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2- K.Thirupathi, PW.3-A.Shankaraiah, PW.4-P.Kaladhar Rao and PW.5-A.Bhadraiah, got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Defendant is examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. 11. The learned Trial Court after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has decreed the suit directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.10,11,750/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization which shall be calculated on principle amount of Rs.9,50,000/-. 12.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is bad in law and perverse and did not appreciate the evidence let in by the appellant-defendant in proper perspective, simply relied on the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff and decreed the suit. Appellant-defendant has denied the borrowing of an amount and executing promissory note and receipt dated 09.11.2012 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Appellant-defendant has denied the borrowing of an amount and executing promissory note and receipt dated 09.11.2012 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff has failed to take steps for comparison of the signatures of the appellant-defendant to an expert in order to prove the pro-note and that the appellant-defendant specifically contended that the respondent-plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount and did not show the amount covered under Ex.A1-pronote in the Income Tax returns. 12.2 Appellant-defendant has specifically contended that the respondent-plaintiff is due an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to him for which a cheque was issued in his favour and when the appellant- defendant demanded to repay the said amount then the respondent-plaintiff manufactured the document and filed the suit. 12.3 The learned Judge ought to have seen that the appellant- defendant is not residing in Jammikunta and he is residing in Karimnagar from June, 2011 at the time of alleged transaction. As per the pleadings of the respondent-plaintiff, the transaction has taken place at Jammikunta and the appellant has pointed out that there are several discrepancies in the evidence let in by the respondent-plaintiff. The findings given by the learned Judge in Para No.14 that the appellant had not taken any steps with regard to Ex.A1 by filing any case against the respondent-plaintiff, they are unsustainable in law. 12.4 The learned Judge in a casual manner proceeded with the evidence on record and decreed the suit, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and decree. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has proved the execution of Ex.A1 by examining the scribe and witnesses i.e., PWs.2 to 5 and discharged the initial burden placed on him. It is the defendant who has to discharge his burden as he has taken the defense of forgery and the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly decreed the suit as prayed for, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 14. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 15. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned judgment passed in OS.No.6 of 2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad, dated 03.10.2018 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court? 16. 14. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 15. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned judgment passed in OS.No.6 of 2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad, dated 03.10.2018 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court? 16. The original plaint shows that the date of promissory note is 09.11.2012 and the claim was to pass a decree for Rs.9,84,200/- against the person and property of the defendant with interest @ 18% per annum. Plaint got amended vide I.A.No.109 of 2015 dated 04.11.2015 wherein the date of promissory note shown is 11.09.2012 and the claim is to pass a decree for Rs.10,11,750/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the person and property of the defendant with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. 17.1 The evidence of the plaintiff is in the lines of the amended plaint and he deposed that Ex.A1 transaction has taken place in his house. In his cross-examination he stated that he has subscribed chit of Rs.10,00,000/- with the defendant and monthly installment is Rs.40,000/- per month for a period of 25 months and he has mentioned in Ex.B1 that he joined in the said chit on 03.10.2010, paid an amount of Rs.6,80,910/-. As on the date of suit promissory note – Ex.A1, the defendant is due to pay the chit amount to him as the chit was still running and he was supposed to pay Rs.8,00,000/-, he has not shown the suit promissory note amount in the Income Tax returns. In his business, every transaction used to be done through Bank cheques and transactions, he is not doing any Private Finance business and he is not a money lender and he will not lend money to any one on interest. Defendant requested him to give the suit promissory note amount just one day prior to Ex.A1 and on the next day he has arranged the amount. On the date of Ex.A1, he brought Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- from State Bank of Hyderabad, Jammikunta Branch and remaining amount was with him. Defendant requested him to give the suit promissory note amount just one day prior to Ex.A1 and on the next day he has arranged the amount. On the date of Ex.A1, he brought Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- from State Bank of Hyderabad, Jammikunta Branch and remaining amount was with him. Daily he will bring money from the Banks for his business transactions and he did not bring money from the Bank for the purpose of giving to the defendant, he brought the money from different Banks on the date of execution of Ex.A1 – promissory note. Generally, he will bring money of Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- per day from different Banks and he has mentioned in the plaint that the defendant approached him on the date of transaction (11.09.2012) and borrowed the amount under Ex.A1. One of the attestor to Ex.A1 by name Badraiah (PW.5) is a resident of Sayampet village of Jammikunta Mandal and Kaladhar (PW.4) is resident of Korapalli Village of Jammikunta Mandal, K.Thirupathi (PW.2) is the resident of SRSP Quarters at Jammikunta, A.Shankaraiah (PW.3) is the native of Madaka Village of Odela Mandal but he is residing in a rented house beside his house at Jammikunta and that Ex.A1 was not scribed by the defendant. 17.2. PW.1 denied the suggestion that since no suit transaction has not taken place between him and the defendant, as such he did not file the relevant Bank statement to prove the same, he also denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 is a forged document and that he has to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant under Ex.B2. 18.1. PW.2 deposed that plaintiff is a business man in Adthi Commission Merchant in grain market at Jammikunta, the defendant is also residence of the same Town, he is also a business man and they are acquainted with each other, on such acquaintance the defendant approached the plaintiff on 11.09.2012, borrowed an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- for his business purpose at the house of the plaintiff at Jammikunta in his presence and in the presence of P. Kaladhar Rao (PW.4), A.Bhadraiah (PW.5), A.Shankaraiah (PW.3). The defendant after receipt of the above said amount has executed promissory note and receipt as a collateral security in favour of the plaintiff on the above said date and undertook to pay interest @ 1.50 ps. The defendant after receipt of the above said amount has executed promissory note and receipt as a collateral security in favour of the plaintiff on the above said date and undertook to pay interest @ 1.50 ps. per hundred i.e., 18% p.a. The pronote (Ex.A1) was scribed by A.Shankaraiah (PW.3) and he is one of the attestor to the said document. Plaintiff has informed him that defendant did not pay the pronote amount despite several demands. 18.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he do not know whether on 09.11.2011, defendant and his wife withdrawn as partners in Balaji Cotton Industries and left Jammikunta Village and staying at Karimnagar, so also he do not know the present address of the defendant. A.Shankaraiah (PW.3) is doing Commission Agent business, he do not know his address, his house is situated about 02 kilometers from the house of plaintiff. On the date of Ex.A1, plaintiff was residing at old house near Girls High School at Jammikunta. The suit transaction has taken place at the shop of plaintiff at Jammikunta, when he reached the said shop, the plaintiff and defendant, A.Shankaraiah (PW.3), P.Kaladhar (PW.4), Bhadraiah (PW.5) were present. Shop of PW.1 is adjacent to other shops but he cannot say the full particulars. Shop of PW.1 containing two or three rooms but he never went inside and the suit pronote was scribed by A.Shankaraiah (PW.3) by that time, he reached the shop of PW.1, defendant signed on Ex.A1 after taking the amount thereafter he signed as witness. Plaintiff took money from almarah-wardrobe in his shop and gave the same to the defendant. He do not know from where the plaintiff has brought the amount. Defendant has signed in English language in Ex.A1, he do not know the educational qualifications of the defendant, to his knowledge defendant can read and write and capable of writing promissory note. He went to the shop of plaintiff at about 12.15 P.M. on the date of transaction and he do not know whether PW.1 and PW.3 are close friends and he signed on promissory note and receipt, PW.3 did not sign on the receipt. He went to the shop of plaintiff at about 12.15 P.M. on the date of transaction and he do not know whether PW.1 and PW.3 are close friends and he signed on promissory note and receipt, PW.3 did not sign on the receipt. PW.2 denied the suggestion that there are no talking terms between the plaintiff and the defendant as there were disputes between them with regard to chit amount and that the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and the suit pronote was created to grab the money from the defendant and he is giving false evidence. 19.1. PW.3 is the scribe of Ex.A1, he deposed that plaintiff and defendant are acquainted with each other and basing on such acquaintance, defendant approached the plaintiff on 11.09.2012, borrowed an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- for his business purpose at the house of the plaintiff at Jammikunta in his presence and in the presence of P.Kaladhar (PW.4), Bhadraiah (PW.5) and K.Thirupathi (PW.2). The defendant having received the amount has executed Ex.A1-promissory note on 11.09.2012 and undertook to pay interest @ Rs.1.50 ps. per hundred i.e., 18% per annum and the defendant has brought him to the house of the plaintiff to scribe Ex.A1-pronote and he scribed the same. 19.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is running Adthi shop of Vayuputra Traders at Jammikunta for the past 25 years and the plaintiff is also in the same business and that they are having financial transactions for the past 25 years. Defendant used to do business in Balaji Cotton Industries and he is one of the partner, to his knowledge plaintiff used to supply cotton to Balaji Cotton Industries and Balaji Cotton Industries is closed in the year 2011-12. Balaji Cotton Industries is a big mill and it was liquidated due to loss, several farmers picked up quarrel with the partners to pay their dues. Defendant used to run Private chit business and he do not know whether the plaintiff is subscriber of a chit or not. So also he do not know whether plaintiff has filed criminal case against the defendant vide Crime No.146 of 2013 or not. Defendant used to run Private chit business and he do not know whether the plaintiff is subscriber of a chit or not. So also he do not know whether plaintiff has filed criminal case against the defendant vide Crime No.146 of 2013 or not. On the date of Ex.A1, at the request of defendant he went to the shop of plaintiff at 11.00 A.M. When he reached there, one Kaladhar (PW.4), Bhadraiah (PW.5) and Thirupathi (PW.2) were present and the plaintiff was having promissory note and revenue stamps at his shop and defendant can write the promissory note, he do not know the date on which the defendant has requested the plaintiff for hand loan and he scribed Ex.A1. Whenever a financial transaction takes place the same will be shown in Income Tax Returns. Plaintiff is the Proprietor of Manikanta Adthi Commission Merchant and in Ex.A1 they have mentioned as Rs.1.50 ps interest per month. Plaintiff is not having any money lending license and the defendant agreed to repay the loan amount after three or four months. PW.3 denied the suggestion that he is not the scribe of Ex.A1 and also denied the suggestion that himself and other witnesses colluded with the plaintiff, created Ex.A1 and the same is forged and fabricated document. 20.1. The evidence of PW.4 is the same with that of the evidence of PW.2, he further deposed that on the request of the defendant he K.Thirupathi (PW.2), A.Bhadraiah (PW.5) have signed as a witnesses on the promissory note as well as on the receipt. 20.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is a native of Venkateshwarlapalli H/o. Korapalli Village of Jammikunta Mandal and the distance between his village and Jammikunta is 6 kilometers and PW.1 belongs to his caste, he is doing Adthi business in the name of Manikanta Adthi business and the defendant used to do business in Balaji Cotton Industries and he is one of the partner, to his knowledge he used to supply cotton to Balaji Cotton Industries and the same is closed in the year 2013. On the date of Ex.A1, he went to the shop of the plaintiff at about 11.00 A.M. along with A.Bhadraiah (PW.5) for taking money of agricultural produce, at that time plaintiff alone was present in the shop and after sometime, PWs.2 and 3 came there. Plaintiff and A.Bhadraiah belongs to Shayampet Village. On the date of Ex.A1, he went to the shop of the plaintiff at about 11.00 A.M. along with A.Bhadraiah (PW.5) for taking money of agricultural produce, at that time plaintiff alone was present in the shop and after sometime, PWs.2 and 3 came there. Plaintiff and A.Bhadraiah belongs to Shayampet Village. A.Bhadraiah runs ration shop, himself, A.Bhadraiah met each other near a tea stall which is 100 yards away from the shop of the plaintiff. A.Bhadraiah also came to the shop of the plaintiff for taking amount of his agricultural produce. Except the above said persons and himself no other person were present in the shop of the plaintiff at the time of suit transaction. Defendant is a Graduate and he can write the promissory note and PW.3 is the scribe of Ex.A1. PW.4 has denied the suggestion that defendant never obtained loan from the plaintiff nor executed promissory note in his favour and he left Jammikunta after the business is closed and that the defendant never requested him PWs.2, 3 and 5 to sign in the promissory note and at the request of the plaintiff, they signed on Ex.A1, Ex.A1 is a forged document. 21. The evidence of PW.5 is same with that of the evidence of PW4. In his cross-examination he stated that he is running a ration shop in Shayampet Village for the past 20 years till date. Every month from 1st to 15th, the Government will give ration to the shop for distribution. On 11.09.2012 also ration was supplied to the consumers from his shop. Himself and PW.4 together went to the shop of PW.1 and they met near City Cable shop which is about 6 yards away from the shop of the plaintiff. On the date of Ex.A1, he went to the shop of the plaintiff for taking money of agriculture produce of cotton. He sold 5 quintals of cotton in the month of July, 2012 through the Adthi Commission shop of plaintiff for Rs.4,500/- per quintal. Plaintiff made entry for the amount paid to him in his record book. When he reached the shop of PW.1 he was alone present inside the shop and on earlier occasion also he signed as witness to the promissory note. On the date of transaction plaintiff has given his money. Himself, PWs.2 to 4 and defendant went to the shop of the plaintiff at the same time. When he reached the shop of PW.1 he was alone present inside the shop and on earlier occasion also he signed as witness to the promissory note. On the date of transaction plaintiff has given his money. Himself, PWs.2 to 4 and defendant went to the shop of the plaintiff at the same time. He do not remember exactly after how much time of the transaction they returned back from the shop of PW.1 and he knows the defendant, he do not know whether any chit transaction has taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is true in his presence, defendant never requested the plaintiff to give hand loan mentioned under Ex.A1. Defendant is a Graduate, to his knowledge he can read and write and he can also write the promissory note. PW.3 is the scribe of Ex.A1. PW.5 denied the suggestion that plaintiff, himself and PWs.1 to 4 colluded with each other created Ex.A1 and that the plaintiff has promised him to pay Rs.50,000/- if he succeeds in the suit. He also denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 is a forged document. 22. The evidence of DW.1 is the replica of his written statement. In his cross-examination he stated that plaintiff is working as Adthi Commission Merchant and he used to purchase cotton from him for Balaji Cotton Industries and he knows the plaintiff since the date of running the said Cotton Industries. He has knowledge that income and expenditure and loans given and taken will be shown in the Income Tax Assessment. While retiring from Balaji Industries the remaining partners of the Firm have given him an amount of Rs.20 Lakhs as goodwill and he left Jammikunta to Karimnagar on 20.09.2011 after retiring from Balaji Industries and he cannot say the House number of the Karimnagar House. Prior to filing the present case there were disputes between him and the plaintiff and they had cordial relationship while doing Cotton Business. He is facing 5 cheating cases at Jammikunta police station and the addresses mentioned in Exs.A4 and A5 belongs to Jammikunta. One M.Thirupathi Reddy has filed cheating case against him under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC of PS Jammikunta, the same is registered as CC No.413 by 2015 on the file of II Additional JFCM Huzurabad and the plaintiff has also filed similar case against him which is pending in the same Court. One M.Thirupathi Reddy has filed cheating case against him under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC of PS Jammikunta, the same is registered as CC No.413 by 2015 on the file of II Additional JFCM Huzurabad and the plaintiff has also filed similar case against him which is pending in the same Court. Ex.B2- cheque is issued by the plaintiff to Balaji Cotton Industries and not in his personal capacity and he has not filed any case against the plaintiff in respect of Ex.B2 and he never saw PW.4 at Jammikunta while doing business, he do not know PW.5. DW.1 denied the suggestion that on 11.09.2012, he went to the house cum shop of the plaintiff and obtained Rs.9,50,000/- as hand loan in presence of the witnesses and executed promissory note, and he himself has brought PW.3 to scribe Ex.A1 pro-note and made other witnesses to sign on the suit promissory note and he is giving false evidence. 23. A suggestion is put to PW.1 that the defendant and his wife retired from Balaji Cotton Industries on 09.11.2011 and shifted to Karimnagar and that the defendant left Jammikunta in the year 2011. Ex.A4 is the suit summon and Ex.A5 is the Notice in IA.No.37 of 2013 (under Order 38 Rule 5) of CPC in the suit. Exs.A4 and A5 goes to show that the summons were served on the defendant at Jammikunta address only. (The Trial Court in the judgment vide OS.No.6 of 2013 has wrongly mentioned Ex.A4 as the original new pattadar pass book of plaintiff vide khata No.1225 and Ex.A5 as original old pattadar pass book vide patta No.821 instead of summons in OS.No.6 of 2013 (Ex.A4); Notice in IA.No.6 of 2013 in OS.No.6 of 2013 (Ex.A5) in the Appendix of Exhibits Marked). 24. It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has no capacity to pay the suit amount (Rs.9,50,000/-). Exs.A6, A7, A8 are the Mee Seva 1-B Namunas dated 21.08.2018 which shows that the plaintiff is having lands and he is the pattedar for different extents. Defendant has admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiff is doing Adthi business and the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 goes to show that the plaintiff has capacity to lend the amount. 25. Exs.A6, A7, A8 are the Mee Seva 1-B Namunas dated 21.08.2018 which shows that the plaintiff is having lands and he is the pattedar for different extents. Defendant has admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiff is doing Adthi business and the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 goes to show that the plaintiff has capacity to lend the amount. 25. Ex.B1 is the copy of FIR in Crime No.146 of 2013 dated 19.05.2013 of PS Jammikunta, where under the complainant is the plaintiff, and the accused is the defendant and the crime is registered for the offences under Sections 420 , 506 of IPC and Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The tenor of the complaint goes to show that the defendant made believed the plaintiff that he is running chit worth Rs.10 Lakhs, on his belief the plaintiff has joined in the chit and after paying several installments of Rs.6,80,910/- the plaintiff asked the defendant to auction the chit. But the defendant adamantly refused and did not conduct the auction thereby cheated the plaintiff. When the plaintiff asked the defendant for his money, he threatened with dire consequences. PW.1 has admitted that he has issued Ex.B2-cheque for Rs.5 Lakhs in favour of Balaji Cotton Industries but not to the defendant. 26. Ex.B2-cheque is issued by the plaintiff in favour of Balaji Cotton Industries, but not in favour of the defendant. Ex.B3 is the Form A of Register of Firms of M/s. Balaji Cotton Industries, Jammikunta, dated 18.05.2009 which goes to show that the defendant and 10 others have started M/s. Balaji Cotton Industries on 06.04.2009 and he ceased to be a partner of the firm from 09.11.2011. The firm is registered on 18.05.2009. 27. It is the contention of the defendant that he is educated and if really he has borrowed the amount covered under Ex.A1, definitely he would have scribed the same, the defense taken by him is that Ex.A1 is a forged document created by the plaintiff in collusion with PWs.2 to 5. 28. Defendant counsel has pointed out from the cross- examination of PW.1 that PW.1 admitted that defendant approached him one day prior to Ex.A1 for hand loan and thereafter the amount was given on 11.09.2012. 28. Defendant counsel has pointed out from the cross- examination of PW.1 that PW.1 admitted that defendant approached him one day prior to Ex.A1 for hand loan and thereafter the amount was given on 11.09.2012. Though there are minor discrepancies pointed out from the cross-examinations of PWs.1 to 5, but on careful scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the parties goes to show that the defendant approached the plaintiff for hand loan and the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- to the defendant and thereafter the defendant has executed Ex.A1-promissory note. 29. Plaintiff has discharged his initial burden by examining the scribe and the attestation to Ex.A1 (i.e. PW2 to PW5) All the witnesses in one tenor stated that the defendant after receipt of Rs.9,50,000/- under Ex.A1, executed a promissory note in the presence of the witnesses and the scribe. 30. The burden is shifted on the defendant to prove that Ex.A1 is a forged document. No evidence is adduced by the defendant to show that Ex.A1 is a forged and fabricated document. In absence of any evidence from the defendant's side, it cannot be said that Ex.A1 is a fabricated document when the plaintiff has discharged his initial burden by examining the scribe and the witnesses. 31. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and gave cogent reasons in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff in Para Nos.11 to 14. The learned trial Court has also observed in the judgment that there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 but those discrepancies are minor in nature. Appellant-defendant has not made out any case to set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. This Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly decreed the suit as prayed for. There are no merits in the Appeal. The Appeal deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. 32. Appeal is dismissed without costs. Interim Orders if any, stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.