GODAVARTHI VEERALAKSHMI Vs. SANGI RAMARAJU AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in O. S. No. 73 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram are the appellants.

(2.) RESPONDENT filed the suit against the appellants for recovery of Rs. 24,824/- being the principal and interest due on the promissory note dated 14. 10. 1983 for Rs. 20,000/- executed by G. Suryanarayana, husband of first appellant and father of appellants 2 to 4, alleging that the aforesaid Suryanarayana after having borrowed Rs. 20,000/- from it executed a promissory note in its favour agreeing to repay the principal with interest at 24% per annum, but failed to pay the amount due under the promissory note in spite of repeated demands and died leaving behind the appellants as his heirs and that in spite of repeated demands and registered notice through a lawyer also, appellants also failed to pay the amount due under the promissory note executed by Suryanarayana. First appellant filed her written statement, which was adopted by respondents 2 to 4. The averments, in brief, in the written statement of 1st appellant are, respondent is put to proof that it is a firm registered under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act and is entitled to sue on the promissory note and has to prove that her husband Suryanarayana after borrowing Rs. 20,000/- from the respondent, executed the promissory note dated 14. 10. 1983, and since her husband Suryanarayana executed a gift deed in respect of his entire property creating a life estate in her favour with vested reminder in respondents 2 to 4 neither she nor respondents 2 to 4 are liable to pay the amount claimed in the suit because her husband Suryanarayana did not leave behind any property or assets.

(3.) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as 5 issues for trial. In support of its case respondent examined three witnesses as P. Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A6. On behalf of appellants, only first appellant examined herself as D. W. 1 and marked Exs. B1 to B4. The learned Trial Judge held that the respondent is a firm registered under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act and that the suit promissory note is true, valid and is supported by consideration and the debt was contracted by Suryanarayana for legal necessity and for the benefit of the family and hence is binding on appellants and that an extent of 73 cents in R. S. No. 95/2 was left behind by Suryanarayana and that property came into the hands of the appellants and passed a decree in favour of the respondent and ordered that respondent with a direction to it to realize the decretal amount from 73 cents in R. S. No. 95/2 left behind by Suryanarayana.