JUDGMENT : V. SRINIVAS, J. 1. This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 22 of 2005 dated 19.06.2006 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. 2. The defendants, before the trial Court, are the appellants. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. 3. The respondent instituted the suit against the estate of late Ambati Madduleti Reddy, who is the sole Proprietor of M/s. S.M.S. Agencies Maddur, laying in the hands of appellants, for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,36,542-10 being principal and interest due on accounts. 4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings. 5. The case of the respondent/plaintiff in brief in the plaint was as follows: (i) The respondent-company is a Public Limited Company and it is carrying business in selling fertilizers and pesticides through its dealers to the farmers in all parts of India. Ambati Madduleti Reddy was acting as a dealer of the respondent’s company under the name and style of M/s. S.M.S. Agencies, Maddur, Pamulapadu Mandal of Kurnool District with effect from 18.07.2001 basing on the agreement entered with the respondent’s company and the respondent company supplied fertilizers and pesticides to him starting from 2001. During his lifetime, he was regularly paying the amounts due to the respondent’s company upto 30.11.2001. (ii) Later on, the said Ambati Madduleti Reddy become due an amount of Rs.3,57,439/- i.e. for the period from 30.11.2001 to 14.02.2002. The statement of accounts also filed. The particulars of the said amounts with details of dates of Warehouse delivery notes signed by Agents, Delivery Invoices and Invoice Numbers etc. with amounts are furnished in the annexure filed along with plaint. (iii) While so, the said Ambati Madduleti Reddy died intestate on 14.05.2002 leaving behind the appellants as his legal representatives, who succeed to his estate, being legal representatives of deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddi are liable to discharge the amount due to the respondent’s company. (iv) The respondent’s company demanded the amount from the legal representatives of the late Ambati Madduleti Reddy, but they have not responded. Hence, the suit. 6. (iv) The respondent’s company demanded the amount from the legal representatives of the late Ambati Madduleti Reddy, but they have not responded. Hence, the suit. 6. The appellants/defendants denied the allegations in the plaint and contended in the written statement as follows: (i) They are not aware about the alleged agreement between the respondent and late Ambati Madduleti Reddy and also not aware about the supply of fertilizers and pesticides in the year, 2001. (ii) There is no estate succeeded by the appellants from late Ambati Madduleti Reddy. If at all there are any transactions or accounts, they might be created after the death of late A. Madduleti Reddy. (iii) Even before his death, the right hand of said Ambati Madduleti Reddi is not working and there is no movement in finger joints and was unable to write anything. The plaint as framed by the respondent is illegal and not valid in law. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. On these pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for? 2. To what relief?” 8. At the trial, on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.28, X.1 and X.2 in support of its contentions. On behalf of the appellants/defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, but no documents were exhibited. 9. Basing on the material and evidence, trial Court came to conclusion that the deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy was doing business with the respondent-company and was due to the respondent a sum of Rs.3,57,439/- towards principle and Rs.1,79,103-10 towards interest and thus, decreed the suit against the estate of late Ambati Madduleti Reddi, if any, in the hands of appellants. 10. It is against this decree and judgment, the appellants/defendants preferred this appeal. 11. Heard Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for appellants and Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 12. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court. 13. It is against this backdrop, the point that arises for determination need consideration now: Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent and to what relief? 14. 12. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court. 13. It is against this backdrop, the point that arises for determination need consideration now: Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent and to what relief? 14. POINT: The foremost ground put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants is that the alleged transactions stated by the respondent were not acknowledged by the deceased A. Madduleti Reddy, thereby decreeing the suit is not tenable under law. The second contention raised by him is that much credence was given to the testimony of PW-2, who said to be Assistant Director of Agriculture, because of simple entry in his register concluded that deceased A. Madduleti Reddy has received commodities is absolutely false. Since no document in support of evidence of PW-2 placed rather substantiate, thereby giving weightage to the testimony of PW-2 is not tenable under law. 15. The another contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants is that seven consignments are in huge quantity and same were said to be received by the deceased A. Madduleti Reddy and sold the same overnight is impossible by any businessman, because the same would be purchased by the ryots and who usually purchase the same by taking loans from financial institutions and no prudent businessman would sell the same without maintaining list of ryots, which would invariable for claiming subsidy from the Government. Hence, reasonable inference has to be drawn that the supplies which said to be made were not done as stated by PW-2. Though, DW-2 stated that deceased A. Madduleti Reddy executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff, but admittedly, there is sickness and even before his death, the right hand of Madduleti Reddy is not working and there is no movement to the fingers and unable to write anything on paper. Therefore, the plaintiff supplied commodities and entitled for suit amount is against under law. 16. Therefore, the plaintiff supplied commodities and entitled for suit amount is against under law. 16. As against the same, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that it is a fact established by the plaintiffcompany that they are dealing with supply of fertilizers and pesticides and admittedly deceased A. Madduleti Reddy was doing business in fertilizers and pesticides and during his life time in the month of November 2011, the plaintiff company supplied thirty (30) metric tons of D.A.P., twenty five (25) metric tons of 2020 and twenty five (25) metric tons of M.O.P. During the month of December 2011, thirty (30) metric tons of D.A.P., ten (10) metric tons of M.O.P. and during January 2002, twenty (20) metric tons of D.A.P. and in February 2002, sixty (60) metric tons of D.A.P. was supplied to said A. Madduleti Reddy. In that regard a claim was sent to the Assistant Director of Agriculture in turn Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool. The Trial Court, after evaluating the entire material on record, rightly decreed the suit. 17. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the material on record. It is a fact found from the record that S.M.S. Agencies at Madduru Village of Pamulapadu Mandal by its sole Proprietor Ambati Madduleti Reddy did fertilizers and pesticides business at Madduru Village, Pamulapadu Mandal of Kurnool District. 18. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that Ambati Madduleti Reddy was a dealer of plaintiff-company under the name and style of S.M.S. Agencies and entered into an agreement, dated 18.07.2001. Basing on the said agreement, they have supplied D.A.P. and M.O.P. The said Ambati Madduleti Reddy used to pay the amount regularly due to the company upto 30.11.2001. Later on, he become due an amount of Rs.3,57,439/- for the period from 30.11.2001 to 14.02.2002, after deduction of benefits given to the dealer as per the company rules. The plaintiff further claimed that as per statement of accounts arrived an amount of Rs.3,57,439/- and the said statement of accounts filed before the trial Court and got marked as Exs.A.23 and A.26. 19. Since Ambati Madduleti Reddy did not pay the amount, they got issued a legal notice on 11.11.2004 under Ex.A.24 seeking payment of amount, but defendants denied the claim by way of reply notice dated 25.11.2004 covered under Ex.A.25. 19. Since Ambati Madduleti Reddy did not pay the amount, they got issued a legal notice on 11.11.2004 under Ex.A.24 seeking payment of amount, but defendants denied the claim by way of reply notice dated 25.11.2004 covered under Ex.A.25. In view of such a reply, the plaintiff compelled to file suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,36,542/- along with interest. 20. It is a fact found from the record that Ambati Madduleti Reddy died intestate on 14.05.2002 leaving behind his legal representatives, who succeeded estate of deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy. Thus, the plaintiff claimed that defendants have to discharge the said amount as they have succeeded the estate of deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy. 21. According to the defendant, they are not aware about so-called agreement arrived between deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy and plaintiff-company covered under Ex.A.4 dated 18.07.2001 as well they are not aware about supply of fertilizers till 2001. More so, no estate succeeded by them from deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy and if at all any amount due, they might have created after death of deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy and to the knowledge of the defendants deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy did not due anything to the plaintiff as deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy became sick and there is no movement of finger joints and unable to write anything on paper. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is illegal and not tenable under law. 22. To prove the claim of the plaintiff examined one S. Dhanasekharan, Assistant Manager of plaintiff company as PW-1. Through him Exs.A.1 to A.28 are marked. 23. Besides PW-1, plaintiff also examined one G .Rama Koteswara Rao, Assistant Director of Agriculture, Atmakur and he deposed about transactions and he recommended subsidy to the farmers on purchase of fertilizers through S.M.S. Agencies, Maddur represented by deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy. 24. In order to prove the claim, PW-1 stated his case that since plaintiff company maintaining their accounts and its records were filed with the Court and got it marked as Exs.A.23 and A.26, which were maintained in the regular course of business. The plaintiff also filed dealer invoices as well warehouse delivery notes marked as Exs.A.5 to A.22. There is nothing on record to disbelieve Exs.A.4 to A.28. 25. The plaintiff also filed dealer invoices as well warehouse delivery notes marked as Exs.A.5 to A.22. There is nothing on record to disbelieve Exs.A.4 to A.28. 25. In support of Exs.A.5 to A.22, Ex.X.1 was filed and marked through PW-2 under which it is well established that license was granted in the name of S.M.S. Agencies and Ex.X.1 is Form-A Statement. In which it is stated that plaintiff-company supplied D.A.P. and M.O.P. Ex.X.2 is another document marked through PW-2, which goes to show that S.M.S. Agencies was certified to carry business as a whole sale dealer of fertilizers and pesticides at Maddur Village of Pamulapadu Mandal and Ex.X.2 further speaks that S.M.S. agencies has source of supply from Zirari Industries Limited, Hyderabad, E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited, Kurnool and The Kurnool District Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Kurnool. Ex.X.1 clearly says that M.O.P. and D.A.P. was supplied in the month of November and December, 2001 and also January and February, 2002 in favour of S.M.S. Agencies. 26. This Court perused the testimony of PW-2, who is Assistant Director of Agriculture, whose evidence is relevant in this regard that “he brought proforma ‘A’ statement, a copy of the license issued to S.M.S. Agencies, Maddur (Pamulapadu Mandalam). Ex.X.1 is proforma ‘A’ Statement shows that plaintiff company supplied thirty metric tons to defendant No. 1 during November 2001. The name of the fertilizer is D.A.P. In the same month fertilizer No. 2020 was supplied. It was twenty-five metric tons. In the same month twenty-five metric tons of M.O.P. was supplied. 30 metric tons of D.A.P. was supplied during December 2001. Ten metric tons of M.O.P. was supplied during the same month. During January 2002, 20 metric tons of D.A.P. was supplied. During February 2002, 6 metric tons of D.A.P. was supplied. A claim was sent to A.D. Agriculture to Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool. There is no other company in the name S.M.S. Agencies at Madduru Pamulapadu Mandal, except represented by its sole Proprietor Ambati Madduleti Reddy. Ex.X.2 is the attested copy of Certificate of Registration.” 27. From the above it is clear that M.O.P. and D.A.P. was supplied to the S.M.S. Agencies of Maddur Village of Pamulapadu Mandal by the plaintiff-company. Admittedly, the deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy maintain S.M.S. Agencies. 28. No evidence put forth by the defendants to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2. Ex.X.2 is the attested copy of Certificate of Registration.” 27. From the above it is clear that M.O.P. and D.A.P. was supplied to the S.M.S. Agencies of Maddur Village of Pamulapadu Mandal by the plaintiff-company. Admittedly, the deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy maintain S.M.S. Agencies. 28. No evidence put forth by the defendants to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2. This Court already stated supra through PW-1 dealer invoice as well warehouse delivery notes were placed on record by the plaintiff. Similarly, statement of account covered under Exs.A.25 and A.26 also placed on record, which clearly shows dues from deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy for the supply of fertilizers by the plaintiffcompany. Furthermore, no piece of paper produced by the defendants to show any such ailments suffered by the deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy by the date of his death. 29. Contra to the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no evidence from the defendant except bare denial of claim through DW-1. No doubt, DW-1, who is none other than the wife of deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy, pleads total ignorance of transactions. Whereas, one K.N.V. Prasad, said to be accountant in S.M.S. Agencies, examined as DW-2, admitted that deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff and that he did business in fertilizers and pesticides. He further categorically admitted during cross examination that deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy dealing with the plaintiff during his lifetime. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with evidence of PW-2 referred to supra clearly goes to show that plaintiff is able to prove the suit claim which is due by the deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy. According to the plaintiff, defendants have succeeded the estate of deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the claim of the plaintiff. 30. Admittedly, defendant Nos.1 to 5 are not the partners in the said business and they are not doing business with plaintiff-company as rightly observed by the trial Court, as such, there is no personal liability fastened on defendants and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against the estate of deceased Ambati Madduleti Reddy derived on defendants. 31. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the well-articulated judgment and decree of the trial Court. Therefore, there are no merits in this appeal and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 32. 31. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the well-articulated judgment and decree of the trial Court. Therefore, there are no merits in this appeal and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 32. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment dated 19.06.2006 in O.S. No. 22 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. There shall be no order as to costs. 33. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 34. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.