THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1192 of 2009 Date:26.07.2010 Between: Posham Shanker Rao ………..Appellant/defendant. AND Kathi Rosaiah ……… Respondent/plaintiff. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1192 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.4.2009 passed in A.S.No.27 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2006 passed in O.S.No.284 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The respondent is the plaintiff and the petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.284 of 2003. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.39,400/- basing on a promissory note dated 16.5.2002 for Rs.30,000/- executed by the defendant. The defendant admitted the execution of Ex.A1-promissory note. He took the plea that the plaintiff agreed to receive Rs.16,000/- towards the suit promissory note and on 27.2.2003 received Rs.6,000/-, and when he offered to pay the balance sum of Rs.10,000/- towards full settlement, he refused to receive the same. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined. On behalf of the defendant, three witnesses were examined as DW-1 to DW-3 and were marked as Exs.A1 to A4. The trial Court having noticed the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the defendant with regard to the payment of Rs.10,000/- towards settlement, which is stated to have been arrived on 27.2.2003 proceeded to decree the suit by judgment dated 17.2.2006. The defendant filed A.S.No.27 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet assailing the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2006 passed in O.S.No.284 of 2003. The lower appellate Court reappraised the evidence and the material brought on record and came to the conclusion that the appellant filed to make out any valid ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and thereby proceeded to dismiss the appeal, by judgment dated 1.4.2009. Hence the Second Appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submits that the endorsement appearing on Ex.A1-promossiory note itself indicates that the respondent/plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.16,000/- towards full satisfaction of the amount due under the suit promissory note, and, therefore, the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to claim the entire amount due under Ex.A1- promossory note. Indisputably, the alleged endorsement on the pro- note is not signed by any of the parties. It is the version of the appellant/defendant in the written statement that pursuant to the settlement, he made attempt to pay Rs.10,000/- in which the plaintiff refused to receive the same. But coming to the evidence, he stated that he paid the total amount of Rs.16,000/-. The evidence adduced by the appellant/defendant and his pleadings in the written statement do not go together. This aspect has been stated by the trial Court in Para No.16 of the judgment, which reads as hereunder:- “Further if DW-3 really paid Rs.10,000/- to PW-1, what is the necessity to DW-1 to mention in the written statement that he has to pay Rs.10,000/- to PW-1 and he is trying to give the amount to PW-1 and PW-1 is refusing to receive the same. Further it is a fact that the endorsement does not bear the signatures of neither parties. So from the version of PW-1 that DWs.1 to 3 approached him, though the matter is not settled got it endorsed on the reverse of Ex.A-1, taking the advantage of his old age is, sustainable. Therefore, it can be said that the matter is not settled for Rs.16,000/- and the evidence of DW-1 that he paid Rs.60,000/- to PW-1 is false.” The appellate Court, on reappraisal of the evidence, did not find valid ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court. There is no substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Second Appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:26.7.2010 mrb