THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal Nos.1189 of 2009 & 171 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two second appeals arise out the common judgment, dated 20.02.2009, rendered by the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool, at Adoni in A.S.Nos.41 and 42 of 2006. The appeals, in turn, arose out of O.S.Nos.27 and 11 of 2000, respectively. While the appellant is common, the 7th respondent in S.A.No.1189 of 2009 is the sole respondent in S.A.No.171 of 2010. Himself and respondents 2 to 6 in S.A.No.1189 of 2009 are legal representatives of late M.J.Basi Reddy. O.S.No.27 of 2000 was filed by Basi Reddy, against the appellant, on the basis of a promissory note, dated 08.05.1997, for a sum of Rs.10,000/-, said to have been executed by the appellant. During the pendency of the suit, Basi Reddy died and his legal representatives were brought on record. O.S.No.11 of 2000 was filed by M.J.Ananthasena Reddy, on the basis of promissory notes, dated 01.06.1997 & 04.06.1997, for a sum of Rs.10,000/- & Rs.4,000/-, respectively, said to have been executed by the appellant. It was pleaded that the amounts were borrowed for business and agricultural purpose, and though repeated requests were made, the appellant did not pay the same. The wife of M.J.Basi Reddy, by name Gangamma filed another suit, being O.S.No.10 of 2000, on the basis of a promissory note, dated 10.05.1997 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant opposed the suits by raising the plea that he did not execute the promissory notes at all and that no consideration was passed on, to him. He has also taken the plea that on 10.05.1997, the executant and the witnesses of the promissory notes were in a different village to attend the death ceremony of their close relative, by name Appojanna. Through its judgment, dated 31.08.2006, the trial Court decreed all the three suits. The appellant filed three appeals, being A.S.Nos.41, 42 & 43 of 2006. Through common judgment, dated 20.02.2009, the lower Appellate Court dismissed A.S.Nos.41, 42 and allowed A.S.No.43 of 2006. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the grounds on which the lower Appellate Court allowed A.S.No.43 of 2006 hold good for the other two appeals also. He contends that though the respective promissory notes were executed on different dates, they too were forged and at any rate, the transactions are not supported by consideration. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the second appeals against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court do not warrant consideration. He submits that A.S.No.41 of 2006 is barred by Section 102 C.P.C. and that the other appeal virtually stands on the same footing. The suits were filed on the basis of promissory notes. While in O.S.No.11 of 2000, two promissory notes were relied upon, in O.S.No.27 of 2000 only one promissory note constituted the basis. The appellant pleaded the grounds of non-receipt of consideration and non-execution, in respect of the promissory note that was the subject matter of another suit, being O.S.No.10 of 2000. In addition to that, the appellant raised the plea that the interest claimed is excessive and since he is an agriculturist, the rate of interest must be scaled down. Identical issues were framed in all the suits, viz., i) “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant? and ii) whether the defendant is an agriculturist and is entitled to scale down the rate of interest?” Common evidence was adduced in all the three suits. On behalf of the respondents, the respective plaintiffs and PWs.2 and 3, by name G.Narayana and Kari Basappa, were examined. The promissory notes were filed as exhibits. The appellant deposed as DW.1 and he filed the death certificate of one Mr.Appojanna, which is to the effect that he died on 10.05.1997. The trial Court has also taken on record, Exs.X.1 to X.5, witnessing the agricultural loans borrowed by the appellant. As observed earlier, the suits were decreed through a common judgment. In the first appeals, the lower Appellate Court confined its adjudication, to the proof of execution of the promissory notes and A.S.Nos.41 and 42 were dismissed holding that the execution of the promissory notes was proved. Presumption as to consideration for them was not rebutted by the appellant. The subject-matter of A.S.No.41 of 2006, which, in turn, arose out of O.S.No.27 of 2000, is only Rs.16,600/-. Section 102 C.P.C. bars second appeal against any decree of the value of less than Rs.20,000/-. On that short ground, it is liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may, the suits are based upon promissory notes. It appears that the appellant and the respondents are closely related. It is not in dispute that there were money transactions between them. The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court bestowed their attention to examine the plea of the respondents that the promissory notes were forged. The signatures were meticulously compared and taking the deposition of PWs.2 and 3 into account, the Courts held that execution of the promissory notes, was proved. Out of several promissory notes that were relied upon by the respondents, the one dated 10.05.1997 was the subject-matter of O.S.No.10 of 2000. It was pleaded by the appellant that, one of their relations, by name Appojanna, residing in a different village died on that particular day and all of them, including PWs.2 and 3, went to that place to attend the funeral. That fact was proved by filing Ex.B.1 and by extracting admissions in the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3. Though the trial Court disbelieved the version of the appellant, the lower Appellate Court took that into account and reversed the decree in O.S.No.10 of 2000. The plea of the appellant is that once the promissory note relied in O.S.No.10 of 2000 was found to be forged, the same presumption must be applied to other two cases also. It is difficult to accept this contention. The reason is that the said promissory notes were executed on different dates. The signature of the appellant was found to be natural and genuine on them. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and lower Appellate Court do not warrant interference in these second appeals. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence, the Second Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.14.12.2010. GJ