JUDGMENT:

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellants/Defendants 3 and 4 challenging the decree and Judgment dated 21.01.2009 in O.S.No.19 of 2005 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, East Godavari District (for short, ‘trial court’). Respondents 4 to 6 are the defendants 1, 2 and 5 in the said suit.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2005 seeking recovery of Rs.3,95,065/- from the defendants personally and from their movable and immovable properties and by proceeding against the assets of deceased P.Satyanarayana Raju with subsequent in-

terest @ 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization.

3. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The facts leading to the present Appeal, in a nutshell, are as under:

(a) The 1st defendant is the husband of 5th defendant and the 2nd defendant is their son. The 3rd defendant is the wife of P.Satyanarayana Raju, the son of defendants 1 and 5. The 4th defendant is the son of 3rd de- fendant, and the said P.Satyanarayana Raju. The 1st defendant is the Manager of the joint family consisting of defendants 1 to 5. For the joint family necessities, they borrowed money from the 1st plaintiff through one of their members P.Satyanarayana Raju (b) On behalf of the joint family, P.Satyanarayana Raju borrowed Rs.50,000/- each on 20.04.2002, 01.05.2002, 09.05.2002, and 23.11.2002, and he executed promissory notes in favor of the 1st plaintiff on those respec-

tive dates.

(c) Additionally, P.Satyanarayana Raju borrowed Rs.25,000/- each on

23.11.2002 and 13.12.2002, and Rs. 50,000/- on 10.04.2003 on behalf of the joint family. He also executed promissory notes in favor of the 1st plaintiff on those respective dates.

(d) All seven promissory notes were personally written and signed by P.Satyanarayana Raju, agreeing to repay the borrowed amounts along with an interest rate of 24% per annum to the 1st plaintiff.

(e) Subsequently, despite repeated demands made by the 1st plaintiff, the said P.Satyanarayana Raju did not repay any amounts towards dis- charge of the said debts, and he died on 06.01.2005. Vexed with the de- fendants' attitude, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 04.04.2005 demanding the defendants to discharge the debts due under the said promissory notes. In response, the defendants 3 and 4 issued a reply no- tice on 12.04.2005 making false, frivolous and baseless allegations. The 2nd defendant avoided receiving the notice. Although the other defendants received the notices, but they did not respond. With no payments made by the defendants to clear the debts, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking recov-

ery of the claim.

(f) Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the sole plaintiff died, and plaintiffs 2 and 3 were added as legal representatives of the deceased 1st plaintiff.

5. Defendants 1 and 5 have filed their common written statement ad- mitting the relationship as mentioned in the plaint and contended that the 1st defendant, 2nd defendant, is a minor represented by his mother, 5th de- fendant and late P. Satyanarayana Raju (husband of D.3 and father of D.4) partitioned their joint family properties and executed a registered partition deed dt.24.03.1970. Satyanarayana Raju was never authorized to borrow amounts for defendants 1 and 2. After the partition, defendants 1 and 2 and the 3rd defendant’s husband used to deal with their affairs indepen- dently and individually. The 1st defendant has sufficient movable and im- movable properties; he had no necessity to instruct his eldest son to bor- row amounts from the 1st plaintiff. After the death of P.Satyanarayana Ra- ju, the defendants 3 and 4 pressurized the 5th defendant to give up her share in the estate of Satyanarayana Raju, and when she refused, 4th de- fendant threatened and abused her. If the debt of Satyanarayana Raju is in existence, the plaintiffs have to proceed against the