The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of legal representatives in a suit for recovery of amounts due, based on the evidence presented and the lack of evidence to disprove the plaintiff's claims.

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. 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