Koparowthu Krishna Rao vs Karlapudi Satya Krishna Vara Prasada Rao

Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.—The defendant in O.S.No. 2040 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada is the appellant in this appeal.

The respondent had filed suit for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in total Rs. 16,940/- alleging that the appellant on 15-06-1977 had borrowed that amount for discharge of sundry debts and for getting the accident lorry repaired and executed a pronote Ex. A-1 in his favour on the same day. The defendant did not return the amount in spite of notice and therefore, he has filed the suit for recovery of the same.

The defendant in his written statement has denied that on 15-06-1977 he had executed a pronote in favour of the respondent. He has denied the signature on the pronote Ex.A-1. He denied that he had to pay sundry expenses and needed money for getting the accident lorry repaired. He alleged that the respondent had no capacity to pay Rs. 15,000/- on that date. He further pleaded that he had once obliged the respondent to become village Munsif of Poranki for a limited period of three months and for that he had asked his brother who was the village Munsif of Poranki to go on leave. Thereafter, he again wanted his brother to extend the leave for three more months to which his brother did not agree. Therefore, he had fabricated the pronote Ex.A-1 forging the signature. He prayed that the suit should be dismissed.

The Trial Court on an assessment of the evidence on record, concluded that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the respondent and had voluntarily executed the pronote Ex.A-1 and therefore, passed a decree for recovery of the amount of Rs. 16,940/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realisation.

It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence on record of P.W.1 who is the plaintiff. He has himself admitted in cross-examination that defendant had requested him to lend the amount two months prior to the date of execution of the pronote Ex.A-1 dt. 15-06-1977, whereas the bus had met with an accident in the month of May, 1977 i.e., one month prior to the date of execution of the pronote Ex.A-1. Thus it is evident mat the defendant was not in need of money to get his motor lorry repaired. It has been further urged on behalf of the appellant that the evidence of the expert, examined on behalf of the respondent is directly opposed to the evidence of the expert examined by the appellant and therefore, in these circumstances, the evidence of both the experts should be excluded. The Court should itself, u/s 73 of the Evidence Act compare the signature of the appellant on the pronote with the admitted signature. The Lower court has wrongly relied on the interested testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 3 who are testators (sic. attestors) of the pronote Ex.A-1.

For the aforesaid reasons the decree of the lower Court should be reversed. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record. The evidence of the expert examined on behalf of the appellant has been rightly rejected by the Trial court because, he has not deposed regarding the reasons for reaching to the conclusion that the signature on the pronote Ex.A-1 is not similar to the admitted signature. There is evidence on record that the appellant had borrowed the amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the respondent on the strength of Ex.A-1 which is a genuine document and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

P.W.1 has testified that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 15-06-1977 and the amount was paid to him in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 in Vijayawada, and he, executed the pronote Ex.A-1 which was written by one P. Venkata Raja Rao, who was brought by him to the city bus stand, Governerpet, Vijayawada. The appellant had borrowed the sum to meet the sundry expenses and for getting the accident lorry repaired. His evidence is corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. They have stated in one voice that in their presence the appellant had borrowed Rs. 15,000/- in city bus stand, Vijayawada. One Sri P. Venkata Raja Rao had written the pronote Ex.A-1 which is signed by the appellant in their presence. They have also attested the document.

P.W.1 had stated in the cross-examination that the appellant had requested him to lend the amount two months prior to 15-06-1977. It is an admitted fact and there is also evidence on record, that the lorry of the appellant had met with an accident in the first week of May, 1977, which means that the accident had occurred about five weeks prior to the execution of the pronote Ex.A-1. P.W.1 was examined on 15-12-1981 i.e. after 4 years from the date of transaction and therefore, his statement that two months prior to the date of execution of pronote Ex.A-1 the appellant had asked for the loan amount, is of little consequence because, after a lapse of 4 years he may not be able to tell about the correct period which appears to be short by 3 weeks only. He has stated that one Sri T. Rama Mohana Rao has returned the loan amount of Rs. 9,000/- and one Sri R. Prasad returned the loan amount of Rs. 8,000/- to him prior to the transaction in question. Therefore, he had sufficient funds with him at the relevant time. There is evidence on record, that P.W.1 was the Village Munsif and he owns agricultural lands in the village Poranki, and his father was bus operator. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that at the relevant time the respondent had no capacity to advance loan to the appellant. It would be opposite to mention that on his own showing the appellant had obliged the respondent by giving him an opportunity to become village Munsif for a period of three months which is indicative of their good relationship. Thus it appears natural, that the appellant would have requested the respondent to lend him money to meet the expenses. P.W.3 has testified that he had gone to his Village Vijayawada from Poranki as he had some work in the bank. P.W.2 accompanied him to the bank. There is also evidence on record that one K. Venkateswara Rao who is resident of Poranki works in the Agricultural Development Bank, Vijayawada, Therefore, it appears natural, that P.Ws. 2 and 3 would have gone to Vijayawada, to meet Mr. Venkateswara Rao, in connection with the loan which P.W.3 wanted to take from the Bank. But Mr. Venkateswara Rao was not available in the Agricultural Development Bank on 15-06-1977. According to P.Ws.2 and 3, P.W.1 and the appellant met them in the bank from where, they went to the city bus stand, Vijayawada. The appellant had brought the scribe, who was some Pleader''s clerk and he had written the pronote Ex.A-1. In these circumstances, non-examination of scribe of the pronote is of little consequences and no adverse inference can be drawn for his non-examination.

D.W.1 has stated on oath that he never took any loan from the respondent. He has stated that lorry was insured and Insurance Company paid the amount from which, the accident lorry was repaired. Then, he changed his statement and stated that he had purchased the lorry under Hire Purchase Scheme and therefore, the insurance amount was payable to the financier and not to him. At that time, he had to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the financier. Again, he changed his statement and stated that he had received transportation charges of sugarcane from his villagers and out of that amount he had met the expenditure of getting the vehicle repaired. During the cross-examination, he admitted the signatures on the bonds Exs.A-12 and A-13 through which, he borrowed money from the Co-operative Bank but later in cross-examination he had denied the signatures on Exs.A-12 and A-13. He admitted that he had also raised money from the bank under Exs.A-14 and A-15 which were prepared by his son K.L. Sambasivarao. He has also admitted that the son of P.W.2 was the attestor of those documents but then he denied the signatures also on the marked Exs.A-14 and A-15.

From the discussion of the evidence of D.W.1, it appears that he has no regard on truth. He changes his statement from time to time for the reasons best known to him.

The learned lower Court, has accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 in preference to evidence of D.W.1. His witness tries to establish that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are working with one of the relations of P.W.1 But. this fact has not been put to them. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of D.Ws.2 and 3 that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are interested witnesses.

In Ishwari Prasad Mishra Vs. Mohammad Isa, it is held:

" In considering the question as to whether evidence given by the witness should be accepted or not, the Court has to examine whether the witness is an interested witness and to enquire whether the story deposed to by him is probable and whether it has been shaken in cross-examination.

It would be unsafe to discard the evidence of a witness which appears otherwise to be reasonable and probable, merely because some suggestions were made to him without those suggestions being proved to be true. Evidence given by experts of handwriting can never be conclusive, because it is, after all, opinion evidence."

In Bhupendra Narain Mandal Vs. Ek Narain Lal Das and Others, , it was held:

"In comparing the handwriting upon disputed document with the admitted handwriting, in order to find whether the disputed document is genuine, the true test to be applied in such cases, is to consider the general character and not to lose oneself in scrutinising the formation of each individual letter. It is not uncommon to find differences in the writings of one and the same person even after a short interval of time. It all depends on so many extraneous circumstances the pen the ink, the paper, the posture of his hand and the general conditions in which he writes. It is for this reason that the law merely requires a consideration of the general Character of the writings."

The learned Lower Court has relied on the evidence of expert P.W.4 on the ground that in his deposition he has given the points of similarity and the points of dissimilarity in the disputed signature and the admitted signature. He has given reasons for his finding, whereas, expert examined by the appellant-defendant i.e., D.W.2 had not given reasons for his finding that the signature on Ex.A-1 i.e. the disputed signature, does not tally with the admitted signature. The learned lower court in para 14 of the Judgment has discussed in detail about the mode of writing of 3 letters and has concluded that these letters are not written with steady hand and the admitted signatures of the defendant under S-1 to S-6 are of inferior quality with eratic movements. The speed of writing both in admitted and disputed signatures is also slow.

As held in Bhupendra Narain Mandal Vs. Ek Narain Lal Das and Others, by the Division Bench of Patna High Court, that in comparing the handwriting upon disputed document with the admitted handwriting, the general character of the 2 writings should be compared because, it is not uncommon to find differences in the writings of one and the same person even after a short interval of time, as it depends on so many extraneous circumstances, the pen, the ink, the paper, the posture of his hand and the general conditions in which he writes. It is hazardous to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature, by the Court u/s 73 of the Evidence Act. Even otherwise, agreeing with trial Court, I reach to the conclusion, that even though there is change in formation of some letters in the pronote Ex.A-1, it is of little consequence not only because the man may change writing his signature under the circumstances mentioned above, but also there is oral testimony on record, which appears reliable that the defendant had borrowed the amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the respondent.

On the foregoing reasons, I agree with the learned Trial Court and reach conclusion, that the appellant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on interest from the respondent and executed pronote Ex.-1 in his favour.

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Appellant shall bear the costs of appeal as well as the costs of respondent. Counsel fee as per certificate.