IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIATH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CCCA No.118 of 2000 Between: M/s.Supershine Abrasives (p) Ltd., Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director and another .....Appellants AND M/s.Model Financial Corporation Limited, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director and another .....Respondents CCCA No.144 of 2000 Between: Mrs.V.Kasturi, rep. by her husband and G.P.A. V.V.Narasimha Rao ……Appellant And M/s.Model Financial Corporation Limited, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director, and another .....Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.C.C.A.Nos.118 and 144 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Ghulam Mohammed,J) These two appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2000 passed in O.S. No.166 of 1997 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the first respondent herein against the appellants for recovery of money was decreed with costs and interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization. 2. The main grievance of the appellant in CCCA No.118 of 2000 is that the trial court instead of granting 24 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.50,000/-, has granted 12 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- to pay the decretal amount, which is not reasonable. It is seen that the trial court while decreeing the suit, has given ample opportunity to the appellants to pay the decreetal amount in 12 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per month commencing from May,2000, payable on or before 10th of every month, in default, the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the decretal amount in lumpsum. Since the trial court has shown indulgence and accorded facility to pay the decreetal amount in twelve monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-, further enhancement of instalments to pay the decretal amount would not arise. Further, nine years have elapsed from passing of the decree. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 3. The main grievance of the appellant in CCCA No.144 of 2000 is that the trial court erred in holding that she is also liable to pay the decretal amount, in spite of pleading that her title deeds and signature were fraudulently obtained by the second respondent herein. We have perused the judgment of the trial court, particularly the finding with regard to the liability of the appellant. Except the pleading, there is no testimony to establish her claim. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment pertaining to the said aspect so as to call for interference. 4. In the circumstances, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 20.10.2009 Stp