Point of Law: circumstances claiming that the respondent was a stranger to them, denying the suit transactions despite the fact that they had certain dealings earlier and were well known to each other, the casual manner in which the defence was set up at the trial and subsequent attempts in support thereof do make out that the version of the appellants is on the fringe of falsity. They came out with such defence with sole motive and intention of avoiding their liability and to evade repayment of the amount due under both the suit promissory notes.

JUDGMENT :

M. Venkata Ramana, J.

The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff is the respondent.

2. The respondent laid the suit for recovery of Rs.12,93,127/- payable by the appellants to her basing on two promissory notes dated 03.01.2000 and 06.1.2000 respectively executed by the 2nd appellant on behalf of the 1st appellant registered firm.

3. The case of the respondent as per the plaint is that the appellants 3 and 4, being partners of the 1st appellant along with the 2nd appellant are jointly and severally liable to satisfy her claim and that they borrowed Rs. 32,700/- and Rs. 5,20,850/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. thereunder respectively. She further stated that in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dated 12.12.2005, the appellants failed to repay the amount due and that made her to lay the suit.

4. A written statement was filed opposing the claim of the respondent by the second appellant, which was adopted by the appellants 1, 3 and 4 raising all conceivable defences denying the claim of the respondent. He questioned the very frame of the suit on the ground that the suit promissory notes did not refer to the authorized signatory on behalf of the 1st appellant firm and claiming that the respondent was a stranger to him and other appellants. He further contended that the suit promissory notes are fabricated and forged, denying their execution. He further contended that the suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration and that there was no necessity for the 1st appellant to borrow any money. He also contended that the part payment endorsements alleged to have had been made on these promissory notes are fabricated and that they did not bind them. Thus they denied their liability towards the suit claim.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the trial Court:

"1. Whether the two suit pronotes are true and validly executed by the 2nd defendant?

2. Whether the payments are true?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the defendants 1, 3 and 4 are liable for the suit transaction made by 2nd defendant?

5. Whether the plaintiff firm is registered firm and the plaintiffs are entitled to file the suit as per Sec.69 of Indian Partnership Act?

6. To what relief?"

6. At the trial, the respondent examined herself as P.W.1, her son as P.W.2, one of the attestors of the suit promissory notes as P.W.3 and P.W.4, being a practising Advocate and the scribe of the endorsements under Ex.A2 and Ex.A7 dated 21.12.2002 on these suit promissory notes while relying on Exs.A1 to A16. The second appellant examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the appellants.

7. Basing on the pleadings, evidence and material, the learned trial Judge held both the suit promissory notes being true, valid and binding on the appellants, that the payment endorsements were made for consideration by the 2nd appellant as well as the employees of the 1st appellant firm thereunder holding them true and that the suit claim is within time. Thus recording specific findings on all these issues, considering the suit transaction being commercial in nature, contractual rate of interest was allowed and thus the suit was decreed with costs as prayed making the appellants liable therefore jointly and severally.

8. The appellants, aggrieved thereby, have preferred this appeal.

9. Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, mainly confined his arguments in respect of execution of Ex.A2 and Ex.A7- payment endorsements, referring to the testimony of P.W.4, who is stated to be their scribe vis-a-vis the defence of the appellants. Learned counsel contended that the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove these alleged payment endorsements. On such basis, the learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the suit claim stood barred by time and even otherwise in as much as the plaint was presented on 22.12.2005, if it is computed from the d