JUDGMENT : BATTU DEVANAND, J. 1. This Appeal suit was filed by the Appellants i.e. unsuccessful defendants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the decree and judgment, dated 27.12.2007 passed in O.S. No. 287 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. 2. The respondent herein i.e. M/s. City Chits and Finance, Kakinada filed the suit in O.S. No. 287 of 2005 for recovery of Rs. 3,62,174/- from the defendants. 3. As per the averments of the plaint the 1st defendant joined as member in the plaintiff company in Group No. I-2, Ticket No. 39, for a chit of Rs. 2,00,000/- payable at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month for 40 months and executed the chit agreement on 12.02.2003. On 15.03.2003 1st defendant became successful bidder for a discount of Rs. 1,00,200/- and brought defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who executed the agreement of guarantee. The plaintiff further submits that 1st defendant joined another chit of Rs. 3,00,000/- to be subscribed at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month for 30 months and executed the chit agreement dated 24.01.2004 and in the auction held on 24.01.2004 1st defendant became successful bidder for a discount of Rs. 1,29,900/- and defendants 2 and 3 executed the guarantee agreement. The plaintiff further submits that for the first chit, the defendants executed a demand promissory note for Rs. 1,90,000/- and for the second chit defendants executed a demand promissory note for Rs. 2,90,000/-. The 1st defendant paid some installments and thereafter committed default and as such, the plaintiff company issued legal notices, dated 24.05.2005 and 24.05.2005 and in spite of the legal notices, the defendants failed to pay the amount due and as such, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of Rs. 3,62,174/- payable on both the chits: (3) The defendants filed the written statement denying the plaint averments. The defendants submit that 3rd defendant is husband of 1st defendant and 2nd defendant is the brother of 1st defendant. 3rd defendant was looking after the business of Chaithanya Bar and Restaurant. In January 2003, the 3rd defendant needed Rs. 1,00,000/- for his business and approached Marni Venkayya Chowdari who is the Managing Partner of the plaintiff and the said Venkayya Chowdari agreed to provide Rs. 3rd defendant was looking after the business of Chaithanya Bar and Restaurant. In January 2003, the 3rd defendant needed Rs. 1,00,000/- for his business and approached Marni Venkayya Chowdari who is the Managing Partner of the plaintiff and the said Venkayya Chowdari agreed to provide Rs. 1,00,000/- and the staff of Venkayya Chowdari obtained the signatures of these defendants on several blank papers, printed forms affixed with stamps and 1st defendant never joined any chit and the contra allegations in the plaint are false and fabricated for the purpose of the suit. The defendants further submit that after taking Rs. 1,00,000/- the defendants paid Rs. 1,85,000/- towards interest to the said Venkayya Chowdari and after receiving the notice 3rd defendant approached Venkayya Chowdari and said Venkayya Chowdari admitted his mistake, but with a mala-fide intention filed the suit and there are no bona-fide in the suit and all the documents are forged and fabricated and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the defendant No. 1 is subscriber of the plaintiff Chit Fund Company? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amounts from the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as prayed for? (3) Whether the suit barred by Limitation? (4) To what relief? 5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined PW-1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.19. The defendants examined DW-1 and have not marked any documents on their behalf. 6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record and after hearing both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs for Rs. 3,62,174/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on Rs. 3,41,751/- holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendants. The issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and the trial Court held that there is no plea regarding the suit being barred by limitation and this issue is unnecessarily framed and also answered accordingly. 7. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial Court, the defendants in the suit filed the present appeal. 8. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and the trial Court held that there is no plea regarding the suit being barred by limitation and this issue is unnecessarily framed and also answered accordingly. 7. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial Court, the defendants in the suit filed the present appeal. 8. Heard, Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the material on record in the correct perspective and in the light of the principles laid down in decided cases and its judgment is wholly vitiated thereby. He further submits that the 1st defendant never joined as a member in the plaintiff company more particularly in Group No. I-2, Ticket No. 39, for Rs. 2,00,000/- and she never executed any chit agreement on 12.02.2003. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the allegations of the respondent in the trial Court that the auction was conducted on 24.01.2004 and that in the auction the 1st defendant became successful bidder for a discount of Rs. 1,29,900/- and that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantors and the defendants executed another promissory note for Rs. 2,90,000/- and the defendants 2 and 3 executed an agreement of guarantee on 06.02.2004. He further submits that the 1st defendant is not the member of any of the chits and the question of the liability of defendants 2 and 3 co-extensive with that of the 1st defendant. As and when they never intended to join in any chit more particularly the alleged chits referred in the suit, the question of participating in the bid and becoming highest bidder and executing agreements will not arise. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court decreed the suit after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court and the decree and judgment of the trial Court is in accordance with the law and as such there are no grounds for interference by this Hon'ble Court in the present appeal. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court decreed the suit after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court and the decree and judgment of the trial Court is in accordance with the law and as such there are no grounds for interference by this Hon'ble Court in the present appeal. 11. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in the trial Court that one M. Venkaiah Chowdari being the Managing Partner of the plaintiff company was examined as PW-1 and the documents Exs.A.1 to A.19 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendants Smt. A. Ramayya, who is the 3rd defendant was examined as DW-1 and no documents were filed on behalf of them. 12. As per the evidence of PW-1 the plaintiff is a firm and Ex.A.1 is the Firm Registration Certificate. The evidence of PW-1 revealed that 1st defendant joined in the first chit of Rs. 2,00,000/- payable at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month for 40 months and executed Ex.A.2 chit agreement on 12.02.2003 and became successful bidder and defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors by executing guarantee agreement under Ex.A.4 and all the defendants further executed Ex.A.3 demand promissory note and 1st defendant drawn the prize amount under Ex.A.5 payment slip. The evidence of PW-1 further disclosed that 1st defendant joined another chit of Rs. 3,00,000/- payable at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month for 30 months and executed another chit agreement on 24.01.2004 which was marked as Ex.A.6 and 1st defendant became successful bidder for a discount of Rs. 1,29,900/- and all the defendants executed Ex.A.7 demand promissory note and defendants 2 and 3 executed Ex.A.4 guarantee agreement and 1st defendant received the prize amount under Ex.A.9 payment slip, dated 06.02.2004. Exs.A.10 and A.11 are the statements of account for both the chits and Exs.A.12 and A.16 are the legal notices issued by the plaintiff to the defendants and Exs.A.13 to A.15 and A.17 to A.19 are the postal acknowledgements in respect of two legal notices. 13. In the defence evidence DW-1 deposed that he came for settlement with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff failed to return the blank cheques and demand promissory notes and as such the settlement could not be affected. 14. 13. In the defence evidence DW-1 deposed that he came for settlement with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff failed to return the blank cheques and demand promissory notes and as such the settlement could not be affected. 14. After considering the rival contentions, the trial Court held that the evidence of PW-1 and Exs.A.1 to A.19 clearly established the suit claim and the defendants, on the other hand, failed to controvert the facts established through the evidence of PW-1 and Exs.A.1 to A.19. 15. After perusing the evidence of PW-1 and Exs.A.1 to A.19 and the evidence of DW-1, it is clearly proved that the defendants though, they have an ample opportunity to raise their defence immediately after receiving the legal notices which were marked as Exs.A.12 and A.16, they did not send any reply putting forth their defence. In the trial Court also they failed to putforth their oral or documentary evidence to substantiate their contention. In the absence of any cogent evidence on behalf of the defendants, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff basing on the evidence available on record and as such there are no any valid and legal grounds to interfere into the findings of the trial Court. Accordingly, this appeal fails and decree and judgment of the trial Court is confirmed. 16. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Appeal shall stand closed.