IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 16 OF 2010 Between: Karedla Nookaraju. … Appellant And Marni Lakshmi Narayana. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.16 of 2010 ORDER:- Unsuccessful defendant in both the courts below filed this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by III Additional District Judge, Kakinada in A.S.No.232 of 2008 dated 15.09.2009, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in O.S.No.13 of 2007, dated 12.03.2008 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff on the foot of a promissory note. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit pleading that the appellant/defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 09.10.2003 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum compoundable yearly. As the defendant failed to discharge the loan amount, legal notice has been sent to him and he gave an evasive reply with false allegations. Hence, the suit for recovery of the said amount. Defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and his execution of the promissory note contending that he is one of the subscribers of the chit for Rs.2,00,000/- run by the plaintiff, which is an unregistered chit and at the time of disbursing the prized amount to him, the plaintiff obtained his signature and thumb impression on blank promissory note and on stamped white papers. Though the entire chit amount has been paid, the plaintiff failed to return the blank promissory note and got issued the legal notice with false allegations. Basing upon the above pleadings, necessary issues were settled by the trial Court. To prove the document, plaintiff apart from examining himself as P.W.1, examined attestor of the suit promissory note as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. Whereas the appellant/defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked. The trial court after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate court confirmed the said finding. Questioning the same, the present second appeal has been filed. Once the appellant admitted the suit promissory note containing his signature and also the thumb impression, the burden lies on the appellant to establish his joining in an unregistered chit run by the plaintiff and his executing the blank papers containing the signature. Further he being a businessman and admitted in the cross-examination that he is a member of two or more chits run by the plaintiff and the chit transaction run by the plaintiff was a registered one, the burden heavily lies on the appellant/defendant to plead about the plaintiff obtaining the signature on the blank papers. When he failed to discharge the said burden, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Concurrent findings of fact reached by the courts below does not give raise to any question of law, much less substantial question of law for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 16th April 2010 lmv