The plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Exs.a-4 and a-5 by the 2nd defendant, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the suit amount from the 2nd defendant.

JUDGMENT

Subba Reddy Satti, J. - aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2006 in O.S.No.25 of 1999 on the file of III additional District Judge, Kakinada, insofar as dismissing the suit with costs against the 2nd defendant, the above appeal is filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal are referred to as they were arrayed in suit.

3. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,39,860/- from the defendants.

4. The brief averments in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a company registered under the Indian Companies act with registration No.927/1962-63 and has been doing chit fund business; that 1st defendant joined as member in chit scheme on 30.04.1997 and he was allotted ticket No.LT2XK-49; that total value of chit is Rs.10,00,000/- and 1st defendant has to pay Rs.20,000/- per month in 50 equal installments; that 1st defendant was successful bidder in the auction conducted on 15.06.1997 and agreed to forego Rs.4,00,000/-; that after deducting commission etc., balance amount was paid; that 1st defendant paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- till payment of prize amount and his future liability is Rs.9,00,000/-; that 1st defendant furnished guarantors, who executed agreement dated 03.09.1997 and also executed promissory note jointly on 03.09.1997 for Rs.9,00,000/-; that 1st defendant paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 10.09.1997; that 1st defendant committed default in payment of installments from 10.12.1998; that legal notice dated 21.04.1999 was issued directing the defendants to pay balance of Rs.6,00,000/- and hence, filed the suit.

5. Defendants 4 and 5 remained exparte.

6. 3rd defendant filed memo adopting the written statement filed by 1st defendant. The averments in the written statement of 1st defendant are that 3rd defendant Saripella Satyanarayana Raju alone stood as surety for the 1st defendant; that defendants 2, 4 and 5 did not sign or stand as sureties; that 1st defendant made payment of Rs.26,000/- to N.Saibabu, the then Development Officer and the said amount was not deducted; that 1st defendant joined as member of chit group in Mummidivaram and the Court at Kakinada had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and thus, prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. 2nd defendant filed written statement and contended interalia that signature of 2nd defendant on documents dated 03.09.1997 is forged; that immediately after receipt of notice from the plaintiff company, he got issued reply and also issued detailed reply; that 2nd defendant received notice from the plaintiff's office at Hyderabad on 28.08.1998; that 2nd defendant is nothing to do with the transaction and had no acquaintance with other defendants and prayed to dismiss the suit.

8. The trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for against all the defendants?

(2) Whether the payment made by 1st defendant as alleged by him in his written statement is true and correct?

(3) To what relief?

9. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.a-1 to a-14 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defendants 1 and 3. On behalf of 2nd defendant, he examined himself as D.W.1 and got examined D.W.2. Exs.B-1 to B-5 and Ex.X-1 were marked.

10. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 20.02.2006 against D1, D3 to D5. However, the trial Court dismissed the suit against the 2nd defendant with costs. aggrieved by the same, the above appeal was filed.

11. Heard Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for appellant and Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit in its entirety. He would also contend that trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence against 2nd defendant in its proper perspective. He would further contend that trial Court ought to have considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in proper perspect