THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1400 OF 2011 08.12.2011 Between: Kukkala Yasubabu, Rep. by his Power of Attorneyholder Dr T.V.Ramana Murthy And others. …Appellants AND Srungarapu Surya Prakasa Rao …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1400 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.182 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Razole, are the appellants. The respondent’s (hereafter called, plaintiﬀ) suit was decreed for money. Against which, the defendants unsuccessfully ﬁled appeal being A.S.No.1 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Razole. Against the said Judgment, the present second appeal is filed. The appellants are the brothers and sisters of late Kukkala Raju. The plaintiﬀ instituted the suit alleging that late Kukkala Raju borrowed an amount of Rs.75,000/- under the promissory note dated 22.05.2000, that he failed to pay the same in spite of the demand, and the legal heirs of the defendant are liable to pay the promissory note amount. The ﬁrst defendant ﬁled written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 2 and 3. They admitted that late Kukkala Raju was their brother. They however denied the promissory note alleging that the suit promissory note is forged one. They also further alleged that they did not succeed to any of the properties of late Kukkala Raju and therefore, the suit ﬁled against them is not maintainable. Be it also noted during the pendency of suit, the defendants ﬁled application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 praying the trial Court to send the suit promissory note to an expert for comparison of the signatures of late Kukkala Raju, which was denied. The said order became final. During the trial, the plaintiﬀ examined four witnesses and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. The GPA holder of ﬁrst defendant and third defendant deposed as D.W.1 and D.W.3. They did not mark any documents. On considering oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that the suit schedule promissory note is true and that the defendants are liable to pay the said amount. The appeal is also dismissed. In this second appeal, the counsel for appellants would vehemently contend that both the Courts below failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective. He would urge that in the absence of any evidence that late Kukkala Raju possessed assets and the devolution of assets on the defendants, they could not have been made liable to pay the promissory note amount. After perusing the Judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court, this Court is convinced that the entire case was decided based on facts and no question of law would arise in the present second appeal. The second appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.12.2011 Pln