JUDGMENT : The appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.93 of 1997 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru, West Godavari District. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows: The 1st defendant joined as a subscriber in the plaintiff chit fund firm in 3 chits worth of Rs.50,000/- each payable in 25 instalments at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month with Ticket No.6 in Group D.1 and Ticket Nos.3 and 4 in Group D.2. The 1st defendant became the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 31-12-1995 with respect to one chit out of the above 3 chits before withdrawing the chit amount. The 1st defendant requested the plaintiff to arrange a loan keeping the other two chits as a security and promising to repay the same in regular instalments. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.97,500/- on 06-01-1996 to the 1st defendant with respect to the above 3 chits. The 2nd defendant, who is none other than the wife of 1st defendant, stood as a guarantor and both the defendants executed a demand promissory note and when the plaintiff insisted the defendants to furnish security for the aforesaid amount, the 2nd defendant deposited (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest as claimed by it ? and (5) To what relief ? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff chit fund firm, its Managing Partner is examined as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant is examined as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-23. 7. After completion of trial and hearing arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit in part with proportionate costs for Rs.1,11,000/- only granting subsequent interest over the same at 12% per annum from 01-10-1997 till the date when the redemption period is over and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization and a preliminary decree was passed against the plaint schedule property, granting time for redemption as 3 months and dismissed the claim for remaining amount without costs. 8. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendants filed the present appeal questioning the finding given by the trial Court. 9. 8. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendants filed the present appeal questioning the finding given by the trial Court. 9. Heard Sri Aravala Sreenivasa Rao, on behalf of counsel for the appellants/defendants. None appeared for the respondent/plaintiff. 10. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? and (2) To what extent ? 11. Point No.1: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant joined as a subscriber of the plaintiff chit fund firm in 3 chits worth of Rs.50,000/- each payable in 25 instalments at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month with Ticket No.6 in Group D.1 and Ticket Nos.3 and 4 in Group D.2 and the 1st defendant became the highest bidder in the auction conducted with respect to one chit out of the above 3 chits on 31-12-1995 and the 1st defendant requested the plaintiff to arrange a loan keeping the other two chits as a security and promising to repay the same in regular instalments. The plaintiff further pleaded that in pursuance of the request made by the 1st defendant, the plaintiff advanced an amount of Rs.97,500/- on 06-01-1996 to the 1st defendant. 12. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined its Managing Partner as P.W.1. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the 1st defendant joined as a subscriber in 3 chits and so also executed chit agreements for the respective chit transactions under Exs.A-1 to A-3, Ex.A-1 is dated 27-9-1995 and Exs.A-2 and A-3 are dated 18-10-1995. P.W.1 further deposed in his evidence that a promissory note was jointly executed by both the defendants, who are none other than the husband and wife under Ex.A-4 on 06-01-1996 and guarantee letter was also executed by the defendants under Ex.A-5 and the 2nd defendant also deposited her title deeds by mortgaging the same with the plaintiff for the loan borrowed by the 1st defendant. It was specifically admitted by P.W.1 in his evidence that the 1st defendant became the highest bidder for the 3 chits. The 1st defendant as D.W.1 also admitted in his evidence that the signatures shown to him in Ex.A-4 promissory note belongs to him and his wife. It was specifically admitted by P.W.1 in his evidence that the 1st defendant became the highest bidder for the 3 chits. The 1st defendant as D.W.1 also admitted in his evidence that the signatures shown to him in Ex.A-4 promissory note belongs to him and his wife. He further admits that himself and his wife have executed personal guarantee letter under Ex.A-5. It is not in dispute by both the defendants that the 1st defendant joined as a subscriber in 3 chits and so also executed separate chit agreements under Exs.A-1 to A-3. 13. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the 1st defendant was granted a loan of Rs.97,500/- and the he also admitted in his evidence in cross-examination about the receipt of Rs.97,500/- from the plaintiff in respect of Exs.A-1 to A-3 chit transactions. It was pleaded by both the defendants in the written statement that the plaintiff chit fund firm obtained their signatures on blank stamped papers and blank promissory note at the time of giving the said amount. Admittedly, the transactions took place in the year 1996. The defendants have not taken any legal action against the plaintiff and so also not issued any legal notice to the plaintiff questioning the conduct of the officials of the plaintiff chit fund firm in obtaining the signatures of defendants 1 and 2 on blank stamped papers and blank promissory note Ex.A-4 and so also guarantee letter Ex.A-5 and memorandum of deposit of title deeds Ex.A-6. 14. The evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-11 clearly supports the case of the plaintiff. It was specifically admitted by the 1st defendant in his evidence that the 1st defendant received an amount of Rs.97,500/- from the plaintiff in respect of 3 chits under Exs.A-1 to A-3. It is not the case of defendants that the 1st defendant discharged the said amount with interest as per the terms of chit agreements Exs.A-1 to A-3. It was severely contended by the defendants that the 2nd defendant has not executed any memorandum of deposit of title deeds Ex.A-6 and her signatures were obtained on blank stamped papers. It is not the case of defendants that the 1st defendant discharged the said amount with interest as per the terms of chit agreements Exs.A-1 to A-3. It was severely contended by the defendants that the 2nd defendant has not executed any memorandum of deposit of title deeds Ex.A-6 and her signatures were obtained on blank stamped papers. In order to prove the same, the 2nd defendant did not enter into the witness-box and the 2nd defendant failed to examine herself to prove that the official of plaintiff chit fund firm obtained her signature on a white paper that was fabricated as Ex.A-6 memorandum of deposit of title deeds. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same is well settled by the apex Court in the case of Mohinder Kaur v. Sant Paul Singh, AIR 2019 SC 4780 , wherein it is held as follows: “Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.” 15. Therefore, in the instant case also, even though the 2nd defendant filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, to prove her specific plea that the officials of the plaintiff chit fund firm obtained her signatures on blank papers, she failed to prove the same. As stated supra, in fact no notice was issued to the plaintiff by questioning his conduct in obtaining her signatures on blank papers. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the 2nd defendant. 16. The evidence on record clearly proves that the 1st defendant joined as a subscriber in plaintiff chit fund firm under 3 chit groups and so also the plaintiff advanced an amount of Rs.97,500/- to the 1st defendant and the same is admitted by the 1st defendant. Ex.B-1 coupled with the evidence of D.W.1 clearly goes to show that the 1st defendant paid Rs.15,000/- on 28-01-1997 under Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 is the details of amount under letter head of the plaintiff firm. The plaintiff clearly stated that the 1st defendant has to pay an amount of Rs.89,452/-. Ex.B-1 coupled with the evidence of D.W.1 clearly goes to show that the 1st defendant paid Rs.15,000/- on 28-01-1997 under Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 is the details of amount under letter head of the plaintiff firm. The plaintiff clearly stated that the 1st defendant has to pay an amount of Rs.89,452/-. By giving cogent reasons, the trial Court awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum and decreed the suit in part with proportionate costs for Rs.1,11,000/- and a preliminary decree was passed against the plaint schedule property. I do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and requires no interference. 17. Point No.2:- To what extent ? Resultantly, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree, dated 03-10-2001, in O.S.No.93 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.