THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1190 OF 2010 Dated:08.07.2011 Between: Arumilli Subba Rao .. Appellant And Nunna Venkata Ramanamma (died) and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1190 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is the appellant. He filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2009 in A.S.No.7 of 2006 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, East Godavari District, confirming the judgment of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, East Godavri District in O.S.No.178 of 1997 dated 17.11.2005 whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the first respondent herein (who is no more and her legal representatives are on record) for recovery of money was decreed. Smt.Nunna Venkata Ramanamma instituted the above suit for recovery of Rs.45,940/-. The suit was based on a promissory note executed on 29.09.1985 for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. It is alleged that the defendant made part payments on 15.09.1988, 10.09.1991 and 01.09.1994 and thereafter in spite of demands, declined to pay the amounts. The defendant apposed the suit. He alleged that he borrowed Rs.20,000/- from Arumilli Kondala Rao, son-in-law of the plaintiff, and executed promissory note for a sum of Rs.28,000/- in favour of the plaintiff on 25.07.1994. But the matter was later settled in the presence of elders for payment of Rs.25,000/-. Defendant paid the said amount, but Kondala Rao did not return the promissory note. It is also alleged that the suit is barred by limitation. During trial, the plaintiff – an elderly lady of 85 years old, examined the son-in-law of the plaintiff as PW.1 and the second attestor of the suit promissory note as PW.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. The defendant alone was examined as DW.1. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that in view of the part payments and endorsement made by the defendant on 01.09.1994, the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, the suit was decreed on 17.11.2005 which was also confirmed by the first appellate Court. The counsel for the appellant/defendant vehemently contended that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof of execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence properly. The said plea cannot be accepted. After perusing the judgment of the Courts below, this Court is convinced that the defendant took every possible plea to oppose the suit based on the promissory note and the Courts below have thoroughly considered all the contentions raised by the plaintiff with reference to the disputed questions of fact. Therefore no interference is called for in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 08.07.2011 KH