(1.) The Respondent filed O.S. No. 705 of 2001 against the Appellant in the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, for recovery of Rs. 93,732/-, on the basis of two promissory notes. The Appellant pleaded that he did not borrow any amount from the Respondent and except that he figured as attestor of the promissory notes, he did not execute the same. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through judgment dated 09-10-2006. The Respondent filed A.S. No. 4 of 2007 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was allowed, through judgment dated 24-04-2009, and as a result, the suit was decreed. The Appellant challenges the same.
(2.) Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that it is the son of the Appellant, that had borrowed the amount from the Respondent, and that his client has only figured as an attesetor to the promissory notes. He contends that, on application filed by his client, the trial Court sent the documents for examination by an expert, and an opinion was rendered to the effect that the thumb impression on the documents does not tally with the undisputed thumb impressions of the Appellant. Learned Counsel submits that when such is the clear evidence, there are no bases for the lower Appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
(3.) Sri S.V. Bhatt, Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits that the trial Court recorded certain perverse findings and they were corrected by the lower Appellate Court. He contends that when the Appellant admitted that he has put his thumb impressions on the documents, there was absolutely no basis for the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short 'the Act'), much less, to the report filed by the expert on the basis of the order passed in the I.A. Learned Counsel further submits that the witnesses, who scribed the documents, categorically stated that the documents were executed by the Appellant himself.