TIRUMALAREDDI RAMGOPALA REDDY Vs. BHIMAVARAPU PARAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in O. S. No. 84 of 1979 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Eluru are the appellants.

(2.) Respondent filed the suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 11,304.38 due to her under a promissory note dated 15-01-1977 executed by them in her favour for Rs. 10.000/-. The case of the appellants is that late. T. Chinna Achireddy, father of Appellants 1 and 2 and husband of third appellant had dealings with the husband of the respondent in connection with his Tobacco business and the husband of the re spondent came with a pre-written promissory note reciting as if it is executed by the sons of Achireddy for Rs. 10,000.00 to their house and asked them to sign that promissory note promising that accounts can be settled later, but Sivarama Krishna Reddy brother of appellants 1 and 2 refused to affix his signature thereto and the 3rd appellant affixed her signature thereto in her individual capacity but not as the guardian of her the then minor son and as such the suit promissory note is an inchoate instrument and hence is enforceable. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues for trial. In support of her case respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and another witness as P. W. 2 and marked Exs. A. 1 to A. 6. On behalf of appellants third appellant was examined as D. W. 1. first appellant was examined as D. W. 2 and another witness was examined as D. W. 3, but no documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, held on issues 1 and 2 that the suit promissory note come into existence in the circumstances stated by the appellants, and is supported by consideration, and is enforceable against the appellants, and granted a decree in favour of the respondent. On appeal by the appellants in A. S. No. 106 of 1989, the learned District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) The contention of Sri C. C. S. Sastry learned counsel for the appellants is that since all the persons whose names are mentioned in its preamble did not execute Ex. A.l, and since the 3rd appellant executed Ex. A. 1 in her individual capacity but not as the guardian of her minor son as described in the preamble of Ex. A1, it is a void and enforceable instrument and so both the Courts below were in error in decreeing the suit of the respondent.