“Whether a contemporary document - Ex.A10, which is a certified copy of the sale deed, can be used for comparing the signatures of the defendant on Exs.A1, A2, A3 to A8?” - 2023:APHC:21250
Suit for recovery of amount - forgery plea taken by defendant - suit decreed - the defendant seeks to challenge the said concurrent findings of the two Courts on the ground that the signature of the defendant on the promissory note is compared with the signature on the certified copy of the sale deed, which is Ex.A10, and the finding of the trial Court is unsustainable under law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH R0Y
Second Appeal No. 292 of 2023
THORATI VASANTHA RAO
Versus
PADALA NARAYANAMMA
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings
recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court.
2) The Suit is filed for recovery of money on the foot of a
promissory note against the appellant, who is the defendant,
who has taken the plea of forgery of the suit promissory note.
The trial Court after considering the evidence that is adduced,
including the evidence of handwriting expert, held that the
defendant has signed the promissory note and executed the
same and that he is liable to pay the Suit amount. The first
appellate Court also on proper appreciation of evidence on
record, recorded a finding that the defendant has executed the
suit promissory note and that he is liable to pay the Suit
amount.
3) Now, the defendant seeks to challenge the said concurrent
findings of the two Courts on the ground that the signature of
the defendant on the promissory note is compared with the
signature on the certified copy of the sale deed, which is Ex.A10,
and the finding of the trial Court is unsustainable under law.
2
CMR,J.
S.A.No.292 of 2023
Therefore, alleging that a substantial question of law involved in
this regard is whether the signature on the disputed document
can be compared with the signature on the certified copy of a
sale deed, the present Second Appeal is filed.
4) At the time of hearing, to a pointed question as to what is
the substantial question of law that is involved in this Second
Appeal filed against the concurrent findings of the two Courts,
learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the only
substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal is:
“Whether a contemporary document - Ex.A10, which is a
certified copy of the sale deed, can be used for comparing the
signatures of the defendant on Exs.A1, A2, A3 to A8?”
5) However, when the Court has specifically directed him to
show the findings of both the trial Court and the first appellate
Court given to that effect in the two judgments alleging that the
signature of the defendant is proved on the disputed documents
on the basis of comparison made with the signature on Ex.A10,
certified copy of the sale deed, he failed to show the said findings
either in the judgement of the trial Court or in the judgement of
the first appellate Court.
3
CMR,J.
S.A.No.292 of 2023
6) Therefore, this Court absolutely do not find any
substantial question of law in this Second Appeal warranting
interference of this Court with the concurrent findings recorded
by the trial Court and the first appellate Court. The trial Court
as a first fact finding Court and the first appellate Court as a
second fact finding Court, have clearly recorded a finding that
the defendant has executed the disputed documents on the
basis of the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the
same and held that he is liable to pay the Suit amount.
7) As the appellant miserably failed to substantiate that any
substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal
warranting interference of this Court with the concurrent
findings of the two fact finding Courts, this Second Appeal is
dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,
shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date: 28-06-2023.
cs
