Promissory Note Is Not Compulsorily Attestable—Once Plaintiff Proves Execution, Burden Shifts to Defendant: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Defendant Who Alleges Forgery Must Enter the Witness Box—Failure to Rebut Plaintiff’s Evidence Is Fatal: Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Muli Siva Reddy v. Kambam Venkata Reddy, Second Appeal No. 232 of 2024, upheld the concurrent findings of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that decreed a money recovery suit based on two promissory notes. The defendant’s allegation that the notes were forged was dismissed as baseless due to lack of rebuttal evidence, with the Court holding: 
“Once the plaintiff proves execution and files the original promissory notes, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the same.” 
“The defendant who alleged forgery failed to enter the witness box. A presumption arises that the case set up by him is not correct.” 
“Promissory Notes Not Attestable Documents—Execution Proved Through Original Notes and Credible Testimony” 
The dispute involved two promissory notes—Ex.A1 and Ex.A2—allegedly executed by the defendant on 03.05.2012 and 12.09.2012 for Rs. 65,000 and Rs. 60,000, carrying 24% interest per annum. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S. No. 173 of 2015 for recovery of Rs. 2,08,089. 
 The Trial Court, based on the plaintiff’s examination as P.W.1, corroborated by P.W.2, and the production of original documents, held in favour of the plaintiff. The Court reiterated:  “The law is well settled that the promissory note is not a compulsorily attestable document.” 
“The defendant himself scribed the promissory notes. P.W.1 was not discredited in cross-examination, and nothing material was elicited to shake his testimony.” 

“Allegation of Forgery Must Be Proved—Bare Pleading Without Evidence Is Worthless” 
The defendant claimed the notes were forged due to a family property dispute involving his father-in-law and the plaintiff. The Court noted: “The defendant did not examine himself. He did not prove any altercation or motive for the lleged forgery.” 
“Where a party does not offer himself for cross-examination, the presumption is that his case is not true. — relying on Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, AIR 1999 SC 1441. 

The High Court stressed that even though the defendant filed an application in the First Appeal under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the notes for handwriting analysis, he neither pursued a revision against its dismissal nor proved his claim through any admissible evidence. 
Second Appeal Lies Only on Substantial Questions of Law—None Made Out in This Case
The High Court had framed three questions of law at the time of admission, including: Whether the plaintiff bore the burden to prove the genuineness of the notes? 
Whether P.W.2 could prove execution despite not being an attesting witness? 
Whether the courts below rightly appreciated evidence? 

The Court answered all three against the appellant, holding: “The plaintiff discharged his burden. The defendant failed to rebut it. The lower courts’ appreciation of evidence was proper.
There is no error of law, nor any perverse finding justifying interference under Section 100 CPC.
Final Judgment: Appeal Dismissed, Lower Court Decrees Affirmed 
On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the First Appellate Judge rightly dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Trial Court’s decree. There is no merit in this second appeal.
“The second appeal is dismissed. Each party shall bear their own costs.” 
 
Date of Decision: April 4, 2025