Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
S. Ramireddy (Died) Per L.Rs. vs Usthepalli Krishna Murthy on 27 November, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(2)ALT585
ORDER C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. Respondent filed the suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note executed by Rami Reddy, father of appellants, in his favour, after issuing a notice of demand to the appellants. In the written statement filed by them, appellants took a plea that after receipt of the registered notice they convened a panchayat, because to their knowledge their father did not execute any promissory note. Their case is that they did not send a reply to the notice of the respondent inasmuch as he admitted in the panchayat that he would not institute a suit for recovery of the amount as the promissory note is barred by time and so it is clear that the endorsements on the reverse of the' promissory note are forged and in any event no decree can be passed against them as they did not inherit any property from their father.
2. In support of his case, the respondent examined himself as P.W. 1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. 7th appellant only was examined as D.W. 1 on behalf of the appellants. They did not adduce any documentary evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit. Appeal preferred by the appellants to the first appellate Court was dismissed. Hence, the second appeal.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for appellants is that inasmuch as the deceased Rami Reddy did not die possessed of any property, appellants did not inherit any property of his and as no estate of the deceased devolved on them, no decree can be passed against them. It is also the specific case of the appellants that the endorsements of payments on the promissory note are forged and since the respondent did not take steps to send the signatures on the endorsements of payments to an expert for comparison and opinion, the trial Court and the first appellate Court were in error in passing a decree by comparing the signatures in the disputed writings with the admitted signatures of deceased Rami Reddy. It is his contention that the Court cannot, without the aid of an expert, compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures and come to a conclusion about the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed signatures and so the judgments of the first appellate Court and the trial Court are liable to be set aside.
4. Even assuming that the father of the appellants did not die possessed of any property, the suit for recovery of money filed against the appellants cannot be dismissed, because no personal decree would be passed against the appellants and the decree would be passed against the assets of the deceased in the hands of the appellants and so question as to whether the deceased i.e. the executant of the suit promissory note, left behind any assets or not, or whether the appellants inherited any property of the deceased, would be gone into only at the time of execution of the decree, but not at the time of disposal of a suit. So, even assuming that the deceased Rami Reddy did not die possessed of any property, question of dismissing the suit on the ground that he did not leave behind any assets to be inherited by his legal representatives does not arise.
5. The other contention of the learned Counsel for appellants relates to the validity of the endorsements of payments on the suit promissory note. Both the courts below, after considering the evidence on record, held that the endorsements of payments on the suit promissory note are true and valid after comparing the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures as per Section 45 of the Evidence Act which empowers the Court to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures to form an opinion. The contention of the appellants that the endorsements of payments on the suit promissory note are forgery, in the circumstances of the case, should be deemed to be a plea taken for dragging on the proceedings, because the appellants who pleaded that they are not aware of their father executing a promissory note, may not have knowledge whether their father made the endorsements of payments on the suit promissory note or not and the appellants, having taken a plea that there was a mediation and that in that mediation the respondent admitted that the suit promissory note was barred by time, did not adduce any evidence to show that there was a mediation and that the respondent admitted that the suit promissory note was barred by time. So, it has to be presumed that the mediation set up by the appellants is a myth, and the plea of forgery of the endorsements of payments on the suit promissory note taken by the respondent is based on an assumption.
6. Question whether the endorsements of payments on the suit promissory note are true or not is a pure question of fact. Both the courts below concurrently found that those endorsements are true and valid.
7. Therefore, no question of law, muchless substantial question of law, arise for consideration in this appeal.
8. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.