S RAMIREDDY Vs. USTHEPALLLI KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(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.