JUDGMENT : This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/defendants challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 30.03.2007, in O.S. No.516 of 2006 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,47,266/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 17.01.2004 executed by the first defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/- and for costs. 3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.516 of 2006, are as under: The first defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 17.01.2004 for his necessities and executed a demand promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. On the same day the second defendant, who is the wife of first defendant, has given a hand letter undertaking to discharge the above said pronote debt personally. But inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 did not choose to pay any amount and has been postponing the same on one pretext or other. Plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendants on 17.04.2006, but the defendants did not choose to receive the notice and return the same with intimation served. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 5. The first defendant filed a written statement separately by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: - The first defendant borrowed only Rs.1,00,000/- from the husband of plaintiff by name Reddy Surya Rao, at that time Reddy Surya Rao obtained some cheques and some pronotes duly signed by this defendant as security. Subsequently, the first defendant paid the entire amount due with interest to the plaintiff’s husband on 15.11.2004, thereafter, the husband of plaintiff returned to the first defendant only one pronote and one filled cheque stating that the remaining pronotes and cheques were misplaced and he will return the same whenever they were traced out. Subsequently, the first defendant paid the entire amount due with interest to the plaintiff’s husband on 15.11.2004, thereafter, the husband of plaintiff returned to the first defendant only one pronote and one filled cheque stating that the remaining pronotes and cheques were misplaced and he will return the same whenever they were traced out. The first defendant further pleaded that he is one of the directors and partners of Subhadarshi group, due to the disputes arose among the partners, this suit was filed against him. ii) The second defendant filed written statement contending that the first defendant did not borrow Rs.3,00,000/- on 17.01.2004 from the plaintiff and she did not execute any undertaking letter and the said undertaking letter alleged to have been executed by the second defendant is a fake document and the suit pronote is not valid and the second defendant is not liable for suit claim and the suit is filed to have wrongful gain and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the suit pronote dated 17.01.2004 is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on D1? (ii) Whether the letter of undertaking dt.17.01.2004 is true, valid and binding on D2? (iii) Whether the suit pronote has come into existence in the circumstances stated in the written statement of D1? (iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from defendant? (v) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 and DW2 were examined, however, no documents were marked on behalf of defendants. 8. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 30.03.2007, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard Sri J.Ugranarasimham, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for appellants/defendants and Sri P.Rajagopala Rao, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. 10. 9. Heard Sri J.Ugranarasimham, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for appellants/defendants and Sri P.Rajagopala Rao, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. 10. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the Court below has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellants and so also by the respondent and non-examination of scribe of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 is fatal to the case of the plaintiff. He would further contend that the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record the trial Court rightly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the trial Court and the appeal may be dismissed. 12. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination: 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from defendants 1 and 2? 2. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? 13. Point No.1 : Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from defendants 1 and 2? The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 17.01.2004 and executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @18% p.a. with yearly rests to her or to her on demand, on the same day the second defendant, who is the wife of first defendant has given a hand letter undertaking to discharge the said pronote debt personally and both the defendants jointly and severally liable to discharge the demand pronote debt. The plaintiff further pleaded that inspite of repeated demands, the defendants failed to pay the amount due, as such, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 17.04.2006 and the defendants did not choose to receive the notice. The plaintiff further pleaded that inspite of repeated demands, the defendants failed to pay the amount due, as such, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 17.04.2006 and the defendants did not choose to receive the notice. Since the first defendant denied about the passing of consideration and second defendant denied the execution of undertaking letter dated 17.01.2004 and pleaded that Ex.A2 is a fake document and the suit pronote is not valid one and they are not liable to pay the suit claim, therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove about the execution of Ex.A1 pronote and Ex.A2 undertaking letter given by second defendant and passing of consideration under Ex.A1. 14. The plaintiff was examined as PW1. She reiterated her stand as per her pleading. PW1 testified about the borrowing of amount from her and execution of Ex.A1 pronote, by the first defendant, on the same day and so also execution of Ex.A2 undertaking, by the second defendant, to discharge the said debt along with her husband. 15. PW1 deposed in her evidence about the borrowing of Rs.3,00,000/- by the first defendant on 17.01.2004 and executed Ex.A1 demand promissory note. Her evidence further reveals that the second defendant, who is none other than the wife of first defendant executed Ex.A2 hand letter, undertaking to discharge the said debt, on the same day and inspite of repeated demands the defendants failed to pay the amount due and the plaintiff got issued Ex.A3 legal notice. Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 are returned registered notices. 16. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined the first attestor of the suit pronote and so also Ex.A2 undertaking letter as PW2. PW3 is the second attestor of the suit pronote and so also Ex.A2 undertaking letter. PW2 and PW3 testifies about the borrowing of Rs.3,00,000/- by the first defendant on 17.01.2004 and so also execution of Ex.A1 promissory note. Their evidence clearly supports that the second defendant, who is none other than the wife of first defendant by admitting the said transaction, given Ex.A2 undertaking letter with a promise that she will take responsibility in paying the amount and she also promise to discharge the suit pronote debt personally. More so, no enmity is suggested to PW1 to PW3 in cross examination to depose falsehood against the defendants. More so, no enmity is suggested to PW1 to PW3 in cross examination to depose falsehood against the defendants. On the other hand, the first defendant is not disputing his signature on Ex.A1 promissory note, more so, the DW1 admits that he borrowed the amount from the husband of plaintiff and gave blank signed demand pronotes and cheques and he further admits that he did not issue any reply inspite of receiving notice under Section 138 of N.I Act. To discharge her liability the plaintiff relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and the plaintiff established the execution of Ex.A1 by first defendant, Ex.A2 by second defendant. Another important circumstance is the plaintiff issued a legal notice under Ex.A3 and the said notices were returned with endorsement ‘intimated’. It shows that the defendants have got knowledge of the legal notice but failed to give reply. It was vehemently contended by the first defendant that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend Rs.3,00,000/- and there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW3. Here PW3 has given evidence after a period of three years of the date of execution of Ex.A1 and the minor variations occurred in the cross examination and it is quite natural in view of the lapse of a period of three years from the date of Ex.A1 pronote. Ones the evidence on record establishes the passing of consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- under Ex.A1, the defendants are not supported to question the plaintiff’s financial capacity. 17. For the foregoing reasons, it is clear that after borrowing money of Rs.3,00,000/-, the first defendant executed Ex.A1 pronote and so also on the same day his wife, who is none other than the second defendant in the suit gave undertaking letter to the plaintiff to discharge the above pronote debt personally also and both the defendants jointly liable to pay the suit claim. The contention of the second defendant is that she never executed Ex.A2 undertaking letter and it was forged and fabricated document. The material on record clearly reveals that the second defendant has taken steps to send the Ex.A2 to the handwriting and finger print expert of Pt.Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi, who gave the opinion that the author of admitted documents also executed Ex.A2. The material on record clearly reveals that the second defendant has taken steps to send the Ex.A2 to the handwriting and finger print expert of Pt.Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi, who gave the opinion that the author of admitted documents also executed Ex.A2. The second defendant is examined as DW2 and her evidence reveals that she filed a petition to send the disputed signatures and admitted signatures to the expert and expert gave opinion under Ex.A6 opined that the disputed signature is that of hers. The second defendant fails to examine the said finger print expert, what prevented her to examine the finger print expert as a witness before the Court, when the opinion came adverse to the second defendant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for plaintiff before the trial Court confronted the Ex.A6 report to second defendant, she admitted that expert gave opinion under Ex.A6 that the disputed signature belongs to her. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is undoubtedly clear that the first defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note and received consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- under Ex.A1 pronote and second defendant, who is none other than the wife of first defendant executed undertaking letter and promised to repay the same jointly and personally, hence, the second defendant is also liable along with the first defendant to pay the suit claim. In a case of Kanisetti Audilaxmana Rao vs. A.Raghurami Reddy (died), Attipalli Mallareddy, 1970 (0) AIR AP 158, the Apex Court held that: “….The simultaneous execution of the promissory note and the guarantee letter, affords the clearest indication that they constituted a single transaction and the acceptance of the promissory note by the creditor was because of the inducement of the guarantee. The request of the guarantor is clearly implied to the delivery of the guarantee letter and the acceptance thereof by the creditor. If follows that at the desire of the guarantor, the creditor agreed to take the promissory note from the debtors without resorting to legal action then for the recovery of the debt”. In the present case, as stated supra, the first defendant borrowed the amount and the second defendant, who is none other than the wife of first defendant admitted that she will discharge the pronote debt personally along with her husband. 18. In the present case, as stated supra, the first defendant borrowed the amount and the second defendant, who is none other than the wife of first defendant admitted that she will discharge the pronote debt personally along with her husband. 18. After careful consideration, the trial Court adequately appreciated the evidence, there is no reason for this Court to arrive at different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court, I believe the findings arrived by the trial Court are correct and no justifiable reasons have been shown by the appellants/defendants for arriving at different conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the said decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and it requires no interference. 19. Point No.2: Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? In view of my findings on point No.1, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and the decree and judgment passed by the trail Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 20. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the decree and Judgment dated 30.03.2007, in O.S.No.516 of 2006 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.