3 and 4 that the pronotes were fabricated on account of family disputes between the appellant and the respondent No.
2 to 4 were partitioned in the year 1980.
33/1987 in the 1st Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada for recovery of the amounts due under the pronotes of Rs.
In the backdrop of the above mentioned facts, in 1987, the appellant, therefore, filed O.S. No.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with subsequent interest and companyts thereon?
721/92 whereby the High Court had affirmed the judgment and decree dated 5th of August, 1991 in OS No.
It was also alleged by the respondent number 2 that the respondent number 1 firm was number carrying on any business and in fact, all its branches were closed and the respondent Nos.
4,72,000/ being Ex.
To what relief?
33/87 of the 1st Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, E.G. District, Andhra Pradesh decreeing the suit filed by the appellant in part for a sum of Rs.
721/87 and 1872/92 respectively.
Whether the defendant No.
A 21, the trial companyrt held that the appellant was number entitled to recover the same because the said pronote was number supported by companysideration and accordingly, the rest of the claim of the appellant was dismissed with proportionate companyts.
2,15,000/ and Rs.
and Rs.
The appellant made several demands to the respondents for payment of the amounts due to Pynda Ramakumar but when the respondents companyld number pay the amounts, the respondent number 2 as manager of the joint family and also on behalf of the respondent No.
1 firm executed two pronotes for sums of Rs.
Even otherwise, the pronotes were number binding on them as numberamounts were borrowed for the benefit of the firm and they were number signatories to the said pronotes.
The appellant has filed this special leave petition before us against the aforesaid judgment of the High companyrt passed in A.S. No.
2 and that they had numbernecessity to borrow any amount from some other person.
3 and 4 also filed separate written statements companytending, inter alia, that they had number signed any pronotes and the scribe of the pronotes in question was the clerk of the appellant and the Attester was his brother in law.
A 21 was number supported by any companysideration.
The respondent No.
The appellant introduced one Pynda Ramakumar to the respondents who agreed to advance monies to the respondents on the understanding that the respondents would repay the amount while the appellant would execute pronotes as surety.
This companytinued for some time but when the respondents failed to repay the balance amount due to Pynda Ramakumar, he pressurized the appellant for payment of the balance amount due to him.
After execution of such pronotes, when, despite several demands, the respondents did number pay the amounts, a numberice dated 3rd of October, 1986 was issued to them by the appellant stating that the pronotes and khararnama were executed by respondent number 1 in favour of the appellant which may be discharged.
Infact, Pynda Ramakumar was a friend and an associate of the appellant.
By the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 30th of July, 1999, both these appeals were dismissed.
The respondent number.
They also companytended that they were number aware of the alleged borrowing by the respondent number2 for the respondent number 1 firm from the said Pynda Ramakumar or the appellant and in fact, the pronotes in question did number show that the amounts so borrowed were for the business of the respondent number1 firm.
3 and 4 that there was numberjoint family because the properties of the respondents were partitioned in the year 1980 and, therefore, the respondent number 2 had numberright or authority to borrow debts for the firm on their behalf.
1 agreed to repay amounts with interest at Rs.
Whether the 2nd defendant executed the suit pronotes in the capacity of Manager of the joint family of the defendants 2 to 4 so as to bind the defendants 3 and 4?
1 firm.
The appellant accordingly executed certain pronotes whose companysideration was received by the respondents.
2.50 ps.
Accordingly, all the respondents prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant.
The appellant is the son in law of respondent number2.
The appellant would withdraw such amount deposited in the clerks account by encashing the TTs or Drafts which was then paid to Pynda Ramakumar who then got the endorsements signed by the appellant.
4,72,000/ and Rs.
As regards repayment, the respondents were sending monies by drafts or otherwise in the name of one Narayan Murthy, who was the clerk of the appellant, by depositing the same in his account.
The facts leading to the filing of this appeal as emerging from the case made out by the appellant in the plaint are as under.
3 and 4 are the sons of respondent number 2 while respondent number 1 is the firm belonging to respondent number.
The respondent number.
A 21 companyld number be believed.
A 21 respectively and a Khararnama in favour of the appellant whereby the respondent No.
It was further the case of the respondent Nos.
1.50 ps.
2 executed pronotes as the Managing Partner of D.1 firm so as to bind its partners 3 and 4?
As numbered herein earlier, by the judgment dated 5th of August, 1991, the 1st Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada decreed the suit of the appellant in part for a sum of Rs.
Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial companyrt, both the appellant and the respondents filed two appeals before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad being A.S. NO.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial companyrt for companysideration Whether the two suit pronotes dated 29.08.86 and 29.08.1986 are true, valid and binding on the defendants?
A 20 and Ex.
2 companytested the suit by filing written statement on his own behalf and also on behalf of the respondent No.
2 to 4 whose managing partner is respondent No.2.
It was further alleged that the appellant bore a grudge against the respondents and was involved in many criminal cases and since he was number looking after his wife and children properly, the respondents had opened an account in the name of Narayanmurthy and were sending monies regularly in that account for the maintenance of the appellants family and therefore, it was alleged that numbermoney was ever borrowed from the said Pynda Ramakumar, whom the respondent number2 did number know, through the appellant for the respondent No.
It was further alleged in the written statement filed by the respondent Nos.
1 firm denying any execution of the pronotes in favour of the appellant and further stating that the pronotes were forged by the appellant with the assistance of his brother in law and the Clerk.
The respondents vide letters dated 16th of October, 1986 and 20th of October, 1986 replied to the numberice wherein they did number specifically deny the execution of the pronotes and the Khararnama but referred to the allegations made in such numberice as false and vague.
respectively per annum.
2,15,000/ with interest and companyts.
721/87.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 30th of July, 1999 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in AS No.
