HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No.89/2010 DT. 2-7-2010 1.Mutyala Veera Venkata Rama Rao and another …Appellants-defendants V. Vatsavai Srinivasa Varma. ..Respondent/plaintiff The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No. 89/2010 JUDGMENT: This second appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of the IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari , Kakinada dt. 15-9-2009 made in AS No.244/2006, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants and confirmed the judgment passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada dt.29-9-2006 in OS No.124/2002 decreeing the suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,30,640/-. The respondent-plaintiff instituted the above suit stating that the defendants approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 21-4-2000 promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed a pronote covered under Ex.A-1 on 24-4-2000. When the defendants failed to pay the debt amount in spite of repeated demands, the plaintiff filed the above suit. The respondents- defendants filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such a huge amount of Rs.1,50,000/-; that they borrowed a sum of Rs.50000/- on 18-12-2000 from Parvatini Narasimha Rao under a simple mortgage and at that time said Narasimha Rao obtained their signatures on blank printed pronote forms and white papers affixed with revenue stamps and also on some while blank papers without stamps. On 26-4-2001, the first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from one Mutyala Veerraju under a simple mortgage and at that time, Veerraju obtained the signatures of both the defendants on several pronote forms and blank white papers affixed with revenue stamps and also on stamped papers of Rs. 5/-. Both Narasimha Rao and Veeraju at the time of advancing the amount, promised to advance further amount and asked the defendants to handover the title deeds of their properties. The defendants handed over their title deeds to the said persons, and later by using them the present suit was got filed. On the above pleadings, the trial court settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the suit pronote is true and valid? 2. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 was marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-6 were marked. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties decreed the suit holding that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is convincing and cogent to prove that the defendants executed Ex.A-1 in his favour and execution of Ex.A-1 was further proved by examining the first attestor as P.W.2 and Ex.A-1 is supported by consideration. On appeal being filed by the defendants, the lower appellate court after considering the evidence dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court observing that evidence of P.W.2, who is the first attestor to Ex.A-1-pronote, is crystal clear that he was present when the defendants received Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A-1 pronote. Though P.W.2 was cross-examined at length, nothing has been bought out to discredit his testimony except suggesting that as an agent of Merla Veerraju, he is deposing false. Further, the evidence of the plaintiff in his cross-examination discloses that out of the two attestors of Ex.A-1-pronote, the first attestor who was examined as P.W.2 was brought by him and the other attestor was brought by the defendants, but no efforts were made by the defendants to summon the other attestor and scribe to examine them atleast as a court witness. After receiving notice from the plaintiff, the defendants have not chosen to give any reply, which clearly shows that Ex.A-1-pronote was singed on borrowing the amount. D.W.1 (D-1) in his cross-examination admitted that he is not going to examine his wife, the second defendant as a witness and signatures on Ex.A-1 pronote belong to him and his wife as executants. He further admitted in his cross-examination that himself and his wife borrowed amounts from Parvatini Narasimha Rao and Merla Veeraju by mortgaging the property and they delivered title deeds. No document was filed to substantiate the said plea. Once the defendants admitted that the signatures on Ex.A-1 pronote belong to them as executants and pleaded that they delivered title deeds to Parvatini Narasimha Rao and Merlla Veerraju, burden lies on them to establish the said fact but they failed to establish that the plaintiff with the help of above two persons fabricated Ex.A-1 suit pronote and filed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants failed to make out any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and cogent reasons were assigned for coming to such conclusion, which do not suffer from any manifest illegality. Therefore, I do not find any question of law; much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed at stage of admission. No costs ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:2-7-2010 kmr