BONALA RAJU Vs. SARUPURU SREENIVASULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the amount covered by the promissory note dated 12-6-1996, executed by the appellants in his favour, appellants filed their written statement contending that they did not borrow any amount from the respondent and did not execute the suit promissory note and that is a forged document. It is their case that the 1st appellant worked as a mason under the respondent for some time and since respondent failed to pay the amounts due and payable to him, he stopped attending the works taken up by the respondent and so he must have forged the promissory note, to spite him.

(2.) Basing on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated and forged one? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit sum as prayed for? 3. To what relief?

(3.) In support of his case, respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and another person, who is said to have been present at the time of execution of the suit promissory note, as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 and A2. In support of their case, appellants examined themselves as D. Ws. 1 and 2, but did not adduce any documentary evidence.