IMPORTANT POINT
A promissory note is enforceable even if a Succession Certificate is not produced at the time of filing the suit, provided it can be produced later for execution.

JUDGMENT :

Bandaru Syamsunder, J.

The defendants in OS.No.628 of 2005 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem are the appellants. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit.

2. The appellants and the respondents hereinafter referred to as defendants and plaintiffs as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendants for recovery of promissory note debt with interest, amounting to Rs.85,000/- and costs.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that one late Mr.K.Gopala Krishna, and his son Mr.Sita Rama Rao (1st defendant) jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from late Mr.M.Arjuna, who is the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 for their business purpose, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed a demand promissory note in favour of late Mr.M.Arjuna on 01.12.2002. The plaintiffs submit that the 2nd defendant is the scribe of promissory note, who is no other than one of sons of 1st executants late Mr.K.Gopala Krishna. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that on 09.06.2005 Mr.M.Arjuna died intestate, leaving behind them as legal heirs, due to that they are entitled to recover suit debt. They also stated that one of the executants Mr.K.Gopala Krishna also died in December, 2004, leaving behind the defendants as legal heirs, due to that both the defendants are liable to pay the suit debt, out of the estate of the deceased-Mr.K.Gopala Krishna and the 1st defendant is personally liable for the suit amount. They submit that they demanded the defendants for repayment of promissory note debt and also issued registered notice dated 01.10.2005, which failed to receive by the defendants and they avoided to receive the same. Hence, the suit.

5. The defendants have filed written statement, resisting the claim of the plaintiffs. It is the contention of the defendants that their father Mr.K.Gopala Krishna originally borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the deceased-Mr.M.Arjuna and executed promissory note in the presence of attestors, scribed by the 2nd defendant. They have stated that when Mr.M.Arjuna raised dispute before the elders and obtained another promissory note, i.e. suit promissory note for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, which also scribed by the 2nd defendant, but after one month of execution of suit promissory note, said Mr.M.Arjuna obtained the signature of the 1st defendant on the suit promissory note, but their father Mr.K.Gopala Krishna discharged the original debt of Rs.45,000/- with interest to Mr.M.Arjuna, who also returned the said promissory note, and not returned the suit promissory note, on the ground that it was misplaced. It is also the contention of the defendants that their father Mr.K.Gopala Krishna died on 03.05.2004, whereas Mr.M.Arjuna died on 09.06.2005, but after the death of Mr.M.Arjuna, the 1st plaintiff by colluding with other plaintiffs brought into existence suit promissory note and filed false suit against them, which is not supported by consideration. They also stated that the attestors were not present at the time of execution of suit promissory note and they are the relatives of the plaintiffs who signed afterwards. They have stated that their father Mr.K.Gopala Krishna also got one daughter by name K.Syamala Kumari, and the plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain a decree without obtaining any Succession Certificate from the Court. They pray to dismiss the suit.

6. The trial Court basing on the above pleadings, settled the following issues and additional issue:

1. “Whether the deceased-Koduri Gopala Krishna (original borrower) discharged Rs.45,000/- with interest?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim against the estate of the deceased-K.Gopala Krishna?

4. To what relief”?

ADDITIONAL ISSUE:

“Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties”?

7. The parties went