Telangana High Court
SA/446/2010 of Kalyana Meena Vs Gollangi Ramanayya on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY S.A.No.446 of 2010 Date : 31-12-2010 Between : Kalyan Meena and others .. Appellants And Gollangi Ramanayya .. Respondent Counsel for appellant : Sri G.Venkata Reddy Counsel for respondent : The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal arises out
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYS.A.No.446 of 2010
Date : 31-12-2010
Between :Appellants
Kalyan Meena and others ..
And
Gollangi Ramanayya ..
Respondent
Counsel for appellant : Sri G.Venkata Reddy Counsel for respondent :
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and decree dated19-3-2010 in A.S.No.43/2007 on the file of District Judge, Srikakulamwhereby he has confirmed the Judgment and decree dated 27-4-2007in O.S.No.117/2004 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge,Srikakulam.
The appellants are the defendants in the suit filed by therespondent for recovery of certain amounts borrowed by the husbandof appellant No.2. On the basis of the respective pleadings of theparties, the following Issues were framed by the trial Court :
1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and issupported by consideration ?
2. To what relief ?
On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court decreed thesuit. The said decree was confirmed in appeal.
At the hearing, the only contention advanced by Sri G.VenkatReddy, learned counsel for the appellants is that the finding renderedby the trial and appellate courts that the suit promissory note is trueand valid cannot be sustained in law. According to the appellants, inEx.A-1 suit pronote, the name of Jagan Mohan Rao was shown asthe borrower and not Jagan Manohar, husband of appellant No.2.
In my opinion, this issue falls in the realm of disputedquestion of fact. On appreciation of evidence available on record,both the courts below have concurrently found that the suit pronotewas executed by the husband of appellant No.2. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., this court will not reappreciatethe evidence on record. As no substantial question of law arises inthe Second Appeal, I do not find any merit in the Second Appeal andthe same is accordingly dismissed.
Date: 31-12-2010AM
__________________________
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J