THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2023 OF 1995 JUDGMENT:- The plaintiff in O.S.No.50 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid is the appellant herein. The suit one was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.69,200/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote executed on 20-05-1985 by late Rama Krishna Rao with interest @ 24% p.a. The first defendant is the wife and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased Rama Krishna Rao. As the amount was not paid, the suit was filed. The second defendant filed a written statement denying knowledge of borrowing by Rama Krishna Rao and their liability and the other defendants also adopted the written statement. On the basis of the above pleadings, after framing the necessary issues, on behalf of the plaintiff PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the defendants, Dw.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed. Now the points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the suit transaction is true? 2. Whether the estate of Rama Krishna Rao is liable for the suit debt? POINTS:- Evidently, the suit was filed against the legal representatives of late Rama Krishna Rao, which is not in dispute. The defendants have only denied the knowledge of the execution of the pronote and the evidence of DW.1 and written statement is that late Rama Krishna Rao never informed them. The circumstances itself will not in any way disprove the existence of the transaction. PW.2 is the attester on the pronote and he spoke that Rama Krishna Rao received money and executed the pronote. The lower court found that though late Rama Krishna Rao died on 14-08-1986, no notice was given by the plaintiff till 11-03-1988 and the reply said to have been given, which was not filed into the court; the attesters on the pronote are tailors and their services can easily be procured. On a peculiar reasoning of suppression of the legal notice being not disclosed, the lower court found that the claim of the plaintiff is not probable. It also found that the plaintiff is a professional money lender and he should have maintained accounts and they cannot rely upon the suit pronote and as the evidence of PW.1 discloses that he did not mention the suit transaction in the accounts, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be believed and consequently the suit pronote is held to be not true. The reasoning of the learned Senior Civil Judge is nothing but perverse. When the suit pronote itself carries a presumption of being supported by consideration and when once the execution of the pronote is to be believed, then there is no need for any further evidence to be produced by the plaintiff about the passing of the consideration. The evidence of PW.2 clearly goes to show that the pronote Ex.A-1 was executed by late Rama Krishna Rao. In fact, there is no need for him to be a party to fabricate the document. Merely because, he is a tailor it does not mean that he should attest a fabricate document. In fact, the legal notice is marked as Ex.A-2. Mere delay in issuing a legal notice is no ground to believe that the transaction is a falsity. Except pleading that the deceased was not informed about the borrowing, there is absolutely no material on record to come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has got any enmity with late Rama Krishna Rao to fabricate the suit pronote for any unlawful gain. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 establishes the execution of the pronote which carries the presumption of being supported by consideration and the evidence of DW.1 is not helpful to rebut the presumption or discard the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is liable to be set aside and evidently there is no personal decree against the defendants and what was claimed is only against the estate of the deceased late Rama Krishna Rao in the hands of the defendants. Though the appeal is dismissed against the respondent Nos.1 and 4 still the legal representatives are on record and a valid decree can be passed against the estate of the deceased late Rama Krishna Rao. Therefore, the Appeal Suit is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower court and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till date of decree and 6% from the date of decree till the date of realisation against the estate of the deceased in the hands of the defendants. The plaintiff will be entitled to the costs through out. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 20-10-2011 TSNR