HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2009 Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth day of September, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Dasari Veera Raghaviah Appellant AND Dasari Seetharamanjaneyulu Respondent JUDGMENT: Appellant is the defendant. The suit O.S. No. 116 of 2001 was filed by the respondent herein on the file of the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District for recovery of money based on two pro-notes executed for a sum of Rs.36,000/- each, both dated 27.8.1998 (Exs. A-1 and A-5) in favour of PW-2 B.Govindu. The suit is dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2004 on the ground that the defendant was unable to prove the transaction of the transfer of Exs. A-1 and A-5 vide endorsement under Exs. A-4 and A-8 and the said transactions are nominal transactions and the plaintiff is not the bonafide purchaser for consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff/respondent herein filed appeal A.S. No.279 of 2004 and the learned XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, on re-appreciation of evidence, allowed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 27.2.2006, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was able to discharge the initial burden cast on him with regard to the execution of Exs. A- 1 and A-5 pro-notes in favour of PW-2 and that the PW-2 transferred the said pro-notes in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration and the trial Judge has failed to consider the provisions of Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with regard to the presumption available in favour of the holder of negotiable instrument. The appellate court having considered the oral and documentary evidence and as the presumption available in favour of the plaintiff was not rebutted by the defendant, rightly decreed the suit. As the suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 27.2.2006, i.e. 5 ½ years ago, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is unable to state the present position whether the decree was executed or not. However, the only substantial question raised as to whether the presumption under Sec. 118(g) of the Negotiable Instruments Act still operate even where the evidence on record reflect the financial capacity of the parties and that too on the face of the proceedings under Insolvency Act, requires to be considered provided evidence is available rebutting the presumption. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any substantial question of law for consideration. Consequently, the Second Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah September 28, 2011 MAS