IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 714 OF 2004 Between: Devarapalli Venkateswara Reddy … Appellant-Defendant V/s. Oruganti Venkata Narsimha Reddy … Respondent-Plaintiff Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Singam Venkata Subba Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana The Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 714 OF 2004 JUDGMENT : This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 14-3-2002 passed in AS.No. 141 of 1995 by the I- Additional District Judge, Ongole, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17-7-1995 passed in OS.No. 47 of 1990 by the Subordinate Judge, Addanki. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as “plaintiff” and “defendant”. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.20,000/- under promissory note dated 05-8-1987 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff’s father. The suit was filed after the death of his father. The defendant contested the suit on the following grounds; namely, that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration; secondly, the suit debt was discharged and thirdly that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover money due under the promissory note without obtaining any succession certificate. Since he became entitled to the estate of his father under a will executed by him. 5. Both the courts below concurrently held that the defendant admitted the execution of suit promissory note, the burden is on him to prove that the same is not supported by consideration and that the defendant failed to discharge the said burden. Further the plea of the defendant is that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and that the debt due under the suit promissory note was discharged and the defendant ought not to have taken such plea. However, both the courts below reached to a finding that the defendant failed to discharge the said burden. 6. As regards, the main contention of the defendant that there being no succession certificate, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit debt. Both the courts below correctly held that the defendants are strangers to the family of the plaintiff. They are no way related to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is the only son, he is entitled to recover the debts due to his father as sole surviving legal heir, therefore, there is no necessity to obtain any succession certificate by the plaintiff. 7. The findings arrived at by the courts below are based on evidence and strictly in accordance with law. No substantial question of law in fact arises for consideration in the second appeal. The second appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO. 30-04-2011. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 714 OF 2004 CIRCULATION No. 9 Date: 30-04-2011 Court Master: I s L COMPUTER No. 43