THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 779 OF 2011 DT.21.10.2011 Between: Jampani Murali Chowdary … Appellant And Moparthy Krishna Murthy … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S Syam Sunder Rao Counsel for respondent : The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 779 OF 2011 ORDER: The present Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 10 of 2006 dated 10.3.2011 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge (FTC) Guntur dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 2430 of 2004 dated 28.11.2005 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The appellant herein is defendant, who suffered a decree in O.S. No. 2430 of 2004 vide judgment dated 28.11.2005 for a sum of Rs.34,400/- and for subsequent interest @ 6 % per annum on the principal amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,000/- based on a promissory note in Ex.A.1 dated 19.10.2001. The appellant-defendant filed a written statement refuting the plaint pleadings as false and stated that he purchased land to an extent of Ac.0.40 from the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 19.10.01 for Rs.4,26,000/- and paid an amount of Rs.4,06,000 and has executed the promissory note towards balance sale consideration of Rs.20,000/-. That the said account was settled and only Rs.500/- is due to be paid by him and that he has requested the plaintiff to return the subject promissory note by receiving the due amount of Rs.500/- and the plaintiff stated that the pronote is misplaced and promised to return the same whenever it is traced. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and filed chief affidavit of P.W.2, however, P.W.2 did not tender himself for cross examination and his evidence was eschewed. In support of his claim, the plaintiff filed documents in Ex.A.1 to A.4. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and adduced the evidence of D.W.2 and marked documents in Ex.B1 to B.3. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence available on record, observed that neither the signature of the defendant on Ex.A.1 nor execution of the same is in dispute and the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, therefore works out in favour of the plaintiff and onus is on the defendant to show that the recitals of Ex.A.1 are not truthful; that the defendant has not been able to prove his defence, whereas the plaintiff has been able to prove that the recitals of Ex.A.1 is truthful and decreed the suit by its judgment dated 28.11.2005 holding that the plaintiff has been able to prove the suit pronote Ex.A.1. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 28.11.2005, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 10 of 2006 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge (FTC) Guntur. The lower Appellate Court, on reappreciation of the matter, while dismissing the appeal observed that the defendant categorically admitted the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note dated 19.10.2001 and evidence adduced by him does not probabilise his contention that Ex.A1 was executed towards balance sale consideration; that evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 clearly established that the defendant has executed Ex.A1 by receiving consideration mentioned therein from the plaintiff. Thus, both the Courts below, on consideration of the evidence available on record, concurrently held that the plaintiff proved promissory note in Ex.A.1. In the present second appeal, there is no ground made out by the appellant much less a substantial question of law, warranting interference of this Court. The concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below need no interference and the second appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 21.10.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 779 OF 2011 DATE: 21.10.2011