THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 787 of 2011 J U D G M E N T: This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant in the suit aggrieved by the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts against him. The suit was brought forth on the foot of a promissory note said to have been executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent herein in a sum of Rs.35,000/- on 06.10.2002. When the appellant failed to discharge his obligation in spite of receiving the legal notice on 19.03.2004, except making a part payment of Rs.10,000/- through a bankers cheque No. 898699 dated 06.05.2004 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Khammam, the suit was instituted. The appellant has admitted execution of the promissory note, but however, he has denied that he has received the consideration therefor. He has also pleaded that the promissory note came to be executed as a matter of adjustment of certain financial transactions between the plaintiff/respondent and the mother of the defendant/appellant. It is also pleaded by the appellant that there were two subsequent payments effected by him, one in a sum of Rs.15,000/- and another in a sum of Rs.20,000/-. The trial Court, based upon the admission of the plaintiff who was examined as P.W.1 that he has received a part payment of Rs.10,000/-, had no difficulty to believe that the defendant/appellant has paid one installment of Rs.10,000/-, but since the plaintiff has disputed receiving the other two payments, as alleged by the defendant, the defendant was required to prove the same, but unfortunately, no evidence has been let in, in that regard by the defendant. Consequently, the Court below had no other go except to hold that the defendant has not made the two payments of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as represented by him. Hence, it has decreed the suit. The appellate Court had confirmed this fact situation, after re- appraising the entire evidence. The attempt made by the defendant to show and demonstrate certain other financial transactions between the plaintiff and the mother of the defendant/appellant also failed, inasmuch as the Manager of Margadarsi Chit Fund, at Khammam who has been examined as D.W.2 could not lend any credible support to the said theory by producing any documentary evidence. Therefore, both the Courts concurrently found that the appellant herein has failed to establish that he has not received the consideration under the promissory note, Ex.A1 and that he has discharged the entire loan amount. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M. Srinivas would submit that when the defendant has honestly pleaded that he has repaid the loan amount on three different occasions, the trial Court having believed one payment of Rs.10,000/-, made an error in not believing the other two payments. I am afraid, this contention is a far-fetched one. The payment of Rs.10,000/- on 06.05.2004 has been admitted by P.W.1, the plaintiff. Therefore, there was no further necessity for the defendant to prove the same, but the plaintiff has disputed and denied receipt of the other two payments of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively. Therefore, the said payments have been called squarely in issue. Hence, it is for the defendant/appellant to lead such evidence, as is considered appropriate and relevant in the matter and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Court that such payments have been effected. In the absence of any such evidence on record, the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court, as confirmed by the appellate Court that the plaintiff has not received those two payments, cannot be challenged. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant be granted a reasonable period of time to liquidate the liability arising out of the decree under challenge. The appellant is granted time till 31.03.2012 to liquidate the entire liability arising out of the decree under challenge, either in one lump sum or by equitable installments, by effecting the payment by drawing a bankers cheque/demand draft on any nationalized bank drawn in favour of the decree holder/plaintiff and either deposit to the credit of the suit or send the same to the plaintiff by registered post. With this observation granting time for liquidating the liability till 31.03.2012, the Second Appeal is dismissed as it is devoid of any substantial question to be adjudicated by this Court. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 26th July 2011 ksld