THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 1260 OF 2010 DT.21.10.2011 Between: Thotakuru Babu Rajendra Prasad and ors … Appellants And Vemuru Seshagiri Rao and ors … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for respondent : The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 1260 OF 2010 ORDER: The present Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 280 of 2009 dated 30.3.2010 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur at Tenali dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 132 of 2003 dated 6.11.2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The appellants herein are plaintiffs. The first plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 132 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali for recovery of Rs.1,90,000/- towards purchase of bamboos. During the pendency of the said suit, the first plaintiff- Venkateshwararao died and his legal heirs were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 7. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are engaged in the business of timber and the defendant for the purpose of house construction has taken 6900 bamboos, on rental basis by entering into a rent agreement (Ex.A.1), with a specific understanding to return the same within 31 days and failed to pay the rent and return the said bamboos. However, the defendant denied execution of the rent agreement in Ex.A.1 and specifically contended that no bamboos are retained with him and that he has returned all the bamboos to Kagga Edukondalu who is cart man of plaintiffs, under acknowledgments dated 26.5.2000 and 1.7.2000 and that he has paid Rs.10,000/- towards full satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiffs towards rent and interest. The trail Court on consideration of the matter dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 6.11.2008 on the ground that though Ex.A.1 contains the signature of defendant but the recitals of Ex.A.1 were not proved. Further, the trial Court observed that if really the bamboos were not transported through said Kagga Edukondalu, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the mode of transportation and that the plaintiff did not even examine any person who was present at the time of the suit transaction, as such, the contention of the plaintiff cannot be believed to be genuine one. That the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the recitals of Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff failed to prove the same by adducing the corroborative evidence. Having aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 280 of 2009. The lower Appellate Court, on reappreciation of the matter, by its judgment dated 30.3.2010 dismissed the appeal holding that except the word of the first plaintiff who was examined as P.W.1 there is no other supporting document and taking into the assertion of the defendant that he signed on blank agreement, held that plaintiff failed to prove the transaction set out in Ex.A.1. Thus, both the Courts below, on consideration of the evidence available on record, concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to establish recitals of Ex.A.1 alleged rent agreement. In the present second appeal, there is no ground made out by the appellant much less a substantial question of law, warranting interference of this Court and to take a different view from the one arrived at by both the Courts below, based on evidence available on record. The concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below need no interference and the second appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 21.10.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 1260 OF 2010 DATE: 21.10.2011