*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +Second Appeal No.461 of 2010 % Dated 19.07.2011 # Koncha Hanuma Reddy. ….Petitioner $ Koppuravari Satyanarayana. ….Respondent ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G.Venkata Reddy ^ Counsel for respondent : -- < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.461 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.127 of 2006 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Darsi against the respondent, for recovery of amount, on the basis of a promissory note, dated 10.10.1996. He pleaded that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.25,900/- from Peram Venkata Anil Kumar Reddy, a minor and his father by name Konda Reddy. The promissory note is said to have been transferred in favour of the appellant on 10.12.1996. Alleging that in spite of repeated demands, the respondent did not repay the amount, the appellant filed the suit for recovery. The respondent filed a written statement opposing the suit. He pleaded that the promissory note was executed as a measure of renewal of an earlier transaction of the year 1994 and that substantial part of it was discharged towards his lenders. He further pleaded that the transfer of the promissory note in favour of the appellant is defective in law. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 08.10.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A.S.No.2 of 2008 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Darsi. The appeal was allowed through judgment, dated 20.03.2009. Hence, this second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent admitted his signature on the promissory note-Ex.A.1 and in that view of the matter, there was absolutely no basis for the lower appellate Court in reversing the judgment rendered by the trial Court. He further submits that the ground, on which the lower appellate Court reversed the decree viz., that the transfer was effected by one of the lenders and that the minor’s interest was not represented, was outside the scope of the suit, since no such plea was effectively raised by the respondent before the trial Court. This is the second round of litigation between the parties. O.S.No.27 of 1997 was instituted by the appellant, on an earlier occasion, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adhanki for the same relief. The suit was dismissed. A.S.No.19 of 2003 was filed by him in the Court Senior Civil Judge, Adhanki. The lower appellate Court took the view that the suit ought to have been instituted in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Darsi. Accordingly, the suit came be transferred to the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Darsi and re- numbered as O.S.No.127 of 2006. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim? 2. whether the plaintiff is a bona fide holder in due course? 3. whether the defendant is a small farmer? 4. whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 5. whether the receipt filed by the defendant is true? On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were filed. The respondent deposed as D.W.1 and he filed Exs.B.1 and B.2. The suit was decreed and in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the lower appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. whether the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Darsi had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 2. whether the plaintiff is having defect title as the transfer endorsement has not made on behalf of minor and that plaintiff is not a holder in due course? 3. whether there are any tenable grounds to interfere with the finding of the lower Court? The appeal was allowed. The appellant is not the person, from whom the respondent borrowed any amount. He is the transferee of the promissory note from one Mr.Konda Reddy. It is true that the respondent admitted that he executed Ex.A.1. However, he pleaded that it was in the form of renewal of an earlier transaction covered by Ex.B.1. A perusal of Ex.A.1 discloses that it was executed in favour of Anil Reddy, a minor and his father Konda Reddy. It means that there were two lenders under the promissory note and the obligation of the respondent even otherwise,was towards both. Issues 1 and 2 framed by the trial Court cover this aspect viz., whether the transfer of Ex.A.1 in favour of the appellant is proper. The lower appellate Court also dealt in detail, with that question. Though Ex.A.1 was in favour of a minor and his father, the transfer in favour of the appellant was made by the father alone. Not a whisper was made in the endorsement of transfer about the interests of the minor. Notwithstanding the fact that the appellant was the guardian of the minor, a specific mention was required to be made about the transfer of the minor’s interest. The Guardians and Wards Act protects the interests of the minors and prohibits transfer of minors’ interest, without the permission from the Court. Further, the possibility to assume that the father of the minor transferred his part of right under Ex.A.1, and that the suit can be restricted to that, does not exist. The reason is that the interests of the father and his minor son under the promissory note are inseparable. The right arising through it cannot be split. At any rate, that was not even the plea of the appellant or his transferor. The lower appellate Court has dealt with this aspect in detail and arrived at a just and proper conclusion. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 19.07.2011 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.461 of 2010 Date: 19.07.2011