THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY S.A.No.446 of 2010 Date : 31-12-2010 Between : Kalyan Meena and others .. Appellants And Gollangi Ramanayya .. Respondent Counsel for appellant : Sri G.Venkata Reddy Counsel for respondent : The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and decree dated 19-3-2010 in A.S.No.43/2007 on the file of District Judge, Srikakulam whereby he has confirmed the Judgment and decree dated 27-4-2007 in O.S.No.117/2004 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The appellants are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of certain amounts borrowed by the husband of appellant No.2. On the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were framed by the trial Court : 1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and is supported by consideration ? 2. To what relief ? On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court decreed the suit. The said decree was confirmed in appeal. At the hearing, the only contention advanced by Sri G.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants is that the finding rendered by the trial and appellate courts that the suit promissory note is true and valid cannot be sustained in law. According to the appellants, in Ex.A-1 suit pronote, the name of Jagan Mohan Rao was shown as the borrower and not Jagan Manohar, husband of appellant No.2. In my opinion, this issue falls in the realm of disputed question of fact. On appreciation of evidence available on record, both the courts below have concurrently found that the suit pronote was executed by the husband of appellant No.2. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., this court will not reappreciate the evidence on record. As no substantial question of law arises in the Second Appeal, I do not find any merit in the Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date: 31-12-2010 AM