THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.957 of 2010 July 08, 2011 Between: Tadi Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Sathi Reddy ... Appellant And Upadrashta Subrahmanya Sarma (died) And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.957 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant’s suit being O.S.No.326 of 2004 for recovery of a sum of Rs.75,160/- based on Ex.A1, promissory note, dated 23.2.2003 was decreed by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, on 21.4.2008. The appellate Court, namely, the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram reversed judgment and decree of the trial Court, by judgment dated 31.5.2010 in A.S.No.18 of 2008, against which, the present second appeal is filed. The parties are referred as they are arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff allegedly lent Rs.60,000/- under Ex.A1 to Upadrashta Subrahmanya Sarma. He died on 12.3.2004, as per Ex.B1 death certificate. The suit was presented on the same day. Later the defendants 2 to 4, the wife and children of the deceased first defendant, were brought on record as his legal representatives. Besides denying the execution of promissory note, they alleged that no assets were left behind by the deceased to be inherited by the defendants 2 to 4 and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. This weighed with the appellate Court. Relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in Govindammal v Buvaneswari Financing Corporation[1], the appeal was allowed. The Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff relies on S.Ramireddy (died) per L.Rs v Usthepalli Krishna Murthy[2] and submits that even if the original promissor died, there is no bar for passing a decree against the assets of the deceased in the hands of the defendants. There cannot be any quarrel with the legal proposition. As found by the appellate Court, in this case P.W.1 admitted that the promissor did not leave any assets in the hands of D.Ws.2 to 4. Therefore the ratio in S.Ramireddy has no application. The first appellate Court has appreciated the point for consideration in proper perspective and no question of law much less substantial question of law would arise in this second appeal. The second appeal, for the above reasons, is dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) July 08, 2011 YS [1] AIR 2002 Madras 296 [2] 2008 (6) ALD (NOC 88)