THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 289 OF 2011 O R D E R : The 1st defendant, who lost in both the Courts below, has preferred this Second Appeal. The 1st respondent herein, a chit fund company, instituted suit, O.S.No. 236 of 2006 for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,25,166/- together with future interest and costs. The case of the plaintiff is that it is carrying on chit fund business after obtaining registration No. 308 under the Chit Funds Act, 1982. It is their case that the 1st defendant in the suit joined chit group bearing series No. SLF (2) with ticket No.5. The total value of the chit group is Rs.5 lacs with monthly contribution of Rs.10,000/- for 50 months. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 28.03.2004, in the 8th month after the chit group commenced, the 1st defendant participated in the auction and was declared as the successful bidder in a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- and that on 26.04.2004, the 1st defendant furnished the guarantee agreements of defendants 2 to 5 and also all of them have executed jointly a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and that the prize amount of Rs.2,75,000/- was paid to the 1st defendant by way of a crossed account payee cheque bearing No. 748774 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad at Kothagudem and that out of the said prize amount, an amount of Rs.72,300/- was adjusted towards the past arrears from the 1st installment and an appropriate receipt for the said amount was also passed on to the 1st defendant on 26.04.2004. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant has paid some installments subsequently and thereafter, he committed default in payment of the balance amount of Rs.2,04,230/- as on 01.01.2006. Since the 1st defendant has failed to clear the said amount, in spite of repeated demands, the suit was instituted. The 1st defendant in the company of defendants 2 to 5 has flatly denied having entered into any transaction with the plaintiff. The 1st defendant has further denied receipt of the prize amount and also denied repayment of some of the installments. Apart from examining the Foreman of the chit fund company as P.W.1, Exs.A1 to A12 have been got marked on behalf of the plaintiff, while the defendants have examined themselves as D.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.B1, the office copy of the legal notice, dated 02.07.2007 got issued to the plaintiff and Ex.B2, reply notice sent thereto on 14.07.2007 by the plaintiff. The trial Court, in paragraph 11 of the judgment, has recorded the finding of fact in the following words: “ A comparison of admitted signatures of defendants No. 1 to 5 on the vakalat, written statement filed by defendant No.2, and the depositions of defendant Nos. 1 to 5, with the disputed signatures on Exs.A1 to A4, clearly shows that they tally with each other in all respects.” On the basis of this finding of fact, the trial Court had no hesitation whatsoever to come to the conclusion that the 1st defendant, having participated in the auctions that were conducted by the plaintiff on 28.03.2004, has received the prize money and allowed the plaintiff to deduct the arrears of past subscriptions and that he has also made some monthly contributions thereafter, but committed default in making the payments from 01.01.2006 onwards. In view of this finding, the suit was decreed with costs in a sum of Rs.2,25,166/- together with future interest at 12% per annum, on the principal amount of Rs.2,04,230/- from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter, at 6% per annum. The defendants have carried the matter in appeal by instituting A.S.No. 36 of 2009. The learned V Additional District Judge (FTC), Khammam at Kothagudem, after considering the entire evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be modified to the extent of deducting Rs.43,518/-, which amount is liable to be adjusted to the suit chit account, as admitted by the plaintiff. Hence, the appellate Court decreed the suit with costs only in a sum of Rs.2,25,166/- together with subsequent interest on the principal amount at 6% per annum. The appellate Court made it clear that a sum of Rs.43,518/- shall be deducted from the decretal amount and thereafter only, the decretal amount will carry interest. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to prove the execution of the document and further, P.W.1 has admitted that the 1st defendant in the suit has not joined the chit as on 21.09.2003, the date on which it was commenced and hence, the suit ought to have been dismissed. Since the suit was erroneously decreed, he submits that the decree, as confirmed by the appellate Court, deserves to be set at naught. Except filing the copies of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, there is no other material that was brought on record of this case. In the face of the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court, as approved and confirmed by the appellate Court, that the suit documents appear to have been executed by the 1st defendant as well as defendants 2 to 5, who stood guarantee for the 1st defendant, it will be extremely difficult for a second appellate Court to appreciate the contentions canvassed on behalf of the appellant. It will not be proper for an appellate Court to pick up stray statements of facts as narrated or occurring in the course of a judgment and then arrive at a conclusion that the Courts below have erred in the appreciation of facts brought on record. If the 1st defendant and for that matter, defendants 2 to 5 have the slightest of a doubt that they have not executed the suit documents at all, nothing prevented them from taking steps for securing the expert’s opinion thereon. Except leaving suggestions to a witness, who enters the witness box, if a defendant does not pursue the lead any further, it does not lie in the mouth of such witness or a party to challenge the findings of fact recorded subsequently by both the Courts. When once the trial Court, after careful scrutiny, has recorded a finding of fact that the signatures of the 1st defendant as well as defendants 2 to 5 on the suit documents appear to be genuine, in the absence of any credible challenge thereto, it does not lie in the mouth of the 1st defendant or for that matter, defendants 2 to 5 to seek to upset the said finding of fact based upon certain stray statements picked up from the narration of facts rendered by the trial Court. I do not see any ground for admitting this Second Appeal and hence, it is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ---------------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 27th August 2011 ksld