THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.17 of 2011 Date:01.07.2011 Between: Meka Yella Reddy ..... Appellant AND Bobbala Padma Reddy and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J.Suresh Babu Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri G.Manohar Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: -- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2010 in A.S.No.7 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-District Judge, Nalgonda. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. O.S.No.33 of 2005 was filed by respondent No.1 in this appeal for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,72,000/- with interest. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1, who is the appellant in this appeal, borrowed a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and executed a promissory note dated 10.05.2002. Defendant Nos.2 to 4, who were the minor sons of defendant No.1, also subscribed their signatures on the said promissory note, which was marked as Ex.A-1. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have issued a receipt dated 10.05.2002, which was marked as Ex.A- 2. As defendant No.1 failed to repay the debt, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the same along with interest. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying execution of suit promissory note – Ex.A-1 and the receipt – Ex.A-2. He has come out with the plea that both the said documents were forged and fabricated. He has also pleaded that even if the transactions are correct or genuine, they are void as defendant Nos.2 to 4 were minors since the transactions with minors are void and unenforceable. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined P.W.2, who is a witness to Ex.A-1 promissory note. The plaintiff marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 on his side. Defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-4 on his side. The trial Court on completion of trial, while disbelieving the version of the defendants that the suit documents were forged and fabricated, however, dismissed the suit by accepting the plea of the defendants that the suit transaction was void as the same was entered into with the minors (defendant Nos.2 to 4). Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.7 of 2008, which was allowed and the suit was decreed by the lower appellate Court, which is challenged in this second appeal. At the hearing, Sri J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1, submitted that the lower appellate Court committed a serious error in reversing the judgment of the trial Court as the suit transaction with minors was void and unenforceable. Sri G.Manohar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff, sought to justify the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court in its judgment discussed the nature of the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants. It is observed that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly establishes that Ex.A-1 promissory note was executed by defendant No.1, that it may be true that defendant Nos.2 to 4, who were minors, are incapable of executing promissory note and that the relationship between defendant Nos.2 to 4 and defendant No.1 being that of sons and father, the formers’ mere joining their father in execution of the promissory note would not render the entire promissory note void. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning of the lower appellate Court. Even if defendant Nos.2 to 4 were signatories to the promissory note, the transaction to the extent of these defendants is certainly unenforceable. However, defendant No.1, who is the father of defendant Nos.2 to 4, and who borrowed the money cannot escape his liability. This is a case where the liability of the parties to the document is severable. The lower appellate Court has, therefore, rightly confined the passing of decree only to the extent of the liability of defendant No.1, relieving defendant Nos.2 to 4 from the liability. As such, I do not find any error of law giving rise to substantial question of law in the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court. Accordingly, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st July, 2011 GHN