HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1153 of 2010 Dated: 12-11-2010 Between: Chavala Siva Kumar …Appellant AND Sane Venkata Narayana Respondent. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1153 of 2010 JUDGMENT: Unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below filed this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in A.S.No.149 of 2007, dated 02.07.2010, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Junior Civil Judge at Bantumilli in O.S.No.91 of 2005, dated 05.10.2007 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff filed for recovery of money. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their array before the trial Court. The plaintiff instituted the above suit for recovery of Rs.92,000/- from the defendant based on Ex.A.1-pronote stating that for the purpose of family necessity an to clear the sundry debts, the defendant borrowed the said amount on 15.1.2004 and executed Ex.A.1-pronote in favour of the plaintiff on the even date agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. In spite of the repeated demands, as the defendant failed to repay the said amount, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 2.1.2005-Ex.A.2 and in spite of receipt of the notice, the defendant neither paid the amount nor sent any reply. Hence the suit. The defendant while denying the averments of the plaint contended that the plaintiff is doing business in the name of ‘Rama Krishna Traders’ in prawn feed, fish feed, medicines, zevolite and other products and that the defendant is one of the regular customer of Rama Krishna Traders for the last five years. He purchased prawn feed from the plaintiff on different dates on credit basis and on finalization of the accounts on 10.5.2002 there was an outstanding amount of Rs.29,931/- to the plaintiff and the same was acknowledged by him. As the said amount has not been paid to the plaintiff, suppressing the true facts, the plaintiff filed the present suit by pressing into service the signatures of the defendant obtained on blank papers. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court settled necessary issues for trial. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and the scribe of Ex.A.1 was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. Whereas, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1 calculation memo, dated 10.5.2002 and Ex.B.2 the slips showing the purchase of prawn feed from the plaintiff on different dates on credit basis. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff. On appeal, the lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court while dismissing the appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the attestor of Ex.A.1-pronote has not been examined to prove the pronote and therefore, the trial Court ought not to have decreed the suit. When the plaintiff himself admitted about the purchase of the prawn feed from him by the defendant, the trial Court ought to have relied upon Exs.B.1 and B.2 documents, which disprove the claim of the plaintiff. This Court does not find any merit in the said contentions. The defendant himself admitted his signature on Ex.A.1-pronote which was scribed by P.W.2. P.W.2 stated that at the time of Ex.A.1 transaction, one K.N.V.V.Satyanarayana was present. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff got filled the contents on empty pronote and brought before him for signature and that he signed on it as he being his relative. Ex.B.1 is the calculation memo said to have been issued by the plaintiff with his own handwriting on 10.5.2002; and Ex.B.2 are 17 slips relating to purchase of prawn feed on different dates by the defendant. In the cross-examination, the defendant as D.W.1 sated that after receipt of notice, he has neither repaid the amount nor sent any reply. He also stated that except his oral statement that no amount is due from him, there is no record to the said effect. Further there is no signature of the plaintiff either on Ex.B.1 or on Ex.B.2 slips. As rightly observed by the trial Court, it is possible that the papers like Exs.B.1 and B.2 can be printed anywhere. Once the defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A.1, which clearly shows that the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff for family necessities and to clear the old debts, the burden heavily shifts on the defendant to prove that it was pressed into service taking advantage of business transaction. But the defendant failed to disprove the claim of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff proved Ex.A.1 transaction by examining the scribe as P.W.2 apart from himself examining as P.W.1. Under these circumstances, the concurrent findings reached by both the Courts do not give rise to any question of law much less substantial question of law to admit the second appeal. The Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 12, 2010 Tsr.