The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful

defendants questioning the judgment and decree of the

Appellate Court wherein plaintiff9s suit is decreed by

holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the defendants with interest at the rate

of 18% per annum.

3

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred

as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for recovery of

money of Rs.1,72,550/- together with interest at the rate

of 24% per annum. The plaintiff claimed that the husband

of defendant No.1 namely Rajashekharaiah borrowed hand

loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.02.2006 and agreed to repay

the amount with interest. The plaintiff also claims that

defendants on receipt of money executed a demand

pronote and consideration receipt having availed loan of

Rs.1,00,000/-. The plaintiff claims that husband of

defendant No.1 having availed loan did not repay during

his lifetime. After the death of husband of defendant No.1,

plaintiff made several demands requesting them to repay

the loan amount. Hence, he was compelled to issue notice

to the defendants on 02.02.2009. The plaintiff9s grievance

is that neither defendants repaid the amount nor replied to

the legal notice. Hence, the present suit is filed seeking

recovery of money.

4

4. The defendants on receipt of summons contested

the

proceedings

by

filing

written

statement.

The

defendants stoutly denied the alleged transaction and

claimed that the deceased Rajashekharaiah has not at all

borrowed any loan from plaintiff. The defendants also

contended that plaintiff is into money lending business

without a license and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the

suit. The defendants also contended that they have not

succeeded to the estate of the deceased and defendant

No.1 is only receiving pension. On these set of defence

sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined

himself as P.W.1 and two witnesses are examined as

P.Ws.2 and 3 and adduced documentary evidence as

Exs.P.1 to 8, while defendants to counter the claim of the

plaintiff have lead in oral evidence of two witnesses, who

are examined as D.Ws.1 and 2. The defendants, however,

have not chosen to produce any documentary evidence.

5

6. The Trial Court on appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence dismissed the suit by holding that

in absence of proof of defendants having succeeded to the

estate of the deceased, the plaintiff cannot enforce

recovery of money against the legal heirs of the deceased

Rajashekharaiah. The Trial Court drew adverse inference

by taking note of the few admissions tendered by the

plaintiff in cross-examination, wherein he has admitted

that he has filed similar suits seeking recovery. Therefore,

Trial Court was of the view that plaintiff has lent money to

several people without securing a license as contemplated

under law. On these two grounds, the suit is dismissed.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of

the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the

First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having

independently

assessed

the

oral

and

documentary

evidence, however, was of the view that defendants have

inherited the estate of the deceased. This finding is

recorded by the Appellate Court by taking note of the

6

admissions elicited by the plaintiff in cross-examination of

defendants. The defendants have admitted in unequivocal

terms that they have inherited an agricultural land

measuring 1.5 acres, which is situated in Hulivana Village

belonging to the deceased Rajashekharaiah. Therefore,

the Appellate Court was of the view that this admission is

not a stray admission. On the contrary, the Appellate

Court was of the view that this admission clinches the

entire controversy between the parties. It is in this

background, the Appellate Court was of the view that

defendants, who have succeeded to the estate of the

deceased, are under oblig