THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.798 of 2010 Date:27.08.2010 Between: Kompalli Lingaiah. ……..Appellant. And Parvatham Yellaiah. ……Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.798 of 2010 ORDER: This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.6.2010 passed in A.S.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2008 passed in O.S.No.45 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.45 of 2007 and whereas the appellant herein is the defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,05,466/- basing on the promissory note dated 30.12.2004 executed by the defendant for Rs.70,000/-. The plaintiff issued Ex.A2-legal notice, dated 28.9.2006, demanding the defendant to pay the amount due under the promissory note. Though the defendant received the said notice, he did not issue any reply disputing his liability. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,05,466/-. The defendant contested the suit pleading that the suit pro-note is true and valid and that he never borrowed Rs.70,000/- as a loan from the plaintiff on 30.12.2004. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court settled the following issues:- “1. Whether the suit pro-note is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed? and 3. To what relief?” On behalf of the plaintiff, he got himself examined as P.W.1 and examined Palvai Linga Reddy as P.W.2 and marked five documents as Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the defendant, he got himself examined as D.W.1 and marked one document as Ex.B-1. The trial Court, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit pro-note is true and valid and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount due under the suit pro-note, which has been exhibited as Ex.A-1, and thereby decreed the suit by judgment dated 13.10.2008. The defendant filed A.S.No.4 of 2009 assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2008 passed in O.S.No.45 of 2007. The appellate Court, on reappraisal of the evidence on record, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and thereby proceeded to dismiss the appeal by judgment dated 3.6.2010. Hence this second appeal by the defendant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant never borrowed Rs.70,000/- from the respondent/plaintiff and he never executed Ex.A1-promissory note. A further submission has been made that Ex.A2-legal notice allegedly issued by the plaintiff was not served on the appellant/plaintiff. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court as well as the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one of the attesters of Ex.A1-promossiory note as P.W.2. He also marked a copy of the legal notice sent to the appellant/defendant as Ex.A2, postal receipt as Ex.A3 and postal acknowledgement as Ex.A4. The plaintiff is able to prove the execution of Ex.A1-promissory note besides examining himself as P.W.1 by examining one of the attesters as P.W.2. The defendant having taken the plea that the suit promissory note is a rank of forgery failed to take steps to get his signatures appearing on Ex.A1- promossory note examined by the Handwriting Expert. Except his oral testimony, there is no evidence on record to show that the signature appearing on Ex.A1 is not that of him. The trial Court considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and found that Ex.A1- promossiory note is true and valid. The appellate Court, on reappreciation of the evidence brought on record, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the lower court with regard to the validity of the Ex.A1-promissory note. There is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal warranting admission. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:27.8.2010 mrb