DUGGINENI SESHAGIRI RAO Vs. K VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short point is involved in this appeal. The appellant filed a regular suit for recovery of Rs. 1,54,100.00 being the principal amount and interest due on it. The basis for the suit was promissory note allegedly executed by the defendant on 7-9-94 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant in his written statement denied the liability and contended that the plaintiff as well as the marginal witness were strangers to him. He termed the promissory note as 'rank forgery'. The following issues were framed for trial.

(2.) There are certain admitted facts and certain disputed facts. It may not be necessary for us to go into the disputed facts because what we are going to state hereinafter would show that the case can be finally decided on the basis of the admitted facts.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant- plaintiff submits that forgery was taken as a defence but when the appellant made an application to send the document for comparison of signatures to an expert it was rejected by the Court. The learned Counsel for the respondent however submits that, in view of the evidence recorded by the trial Court the decree could have not been passed as the pronote itself was not a legal tender. We are confining ourselves to the questions as to whether the pronote was a legal tender 2001 (6) (R) -F-7 and whether on the facts the execution of the document was proved.