EVIDENCE ACT – Admissions – stray line in cross-examination – when not treated as binding admission. Defendants contended that PW1 admitted in cross-examination that during the life time of the executant he never demanded the amount under Ex.A1 and that neither he nor the executant informed the defendants about Ex.A1, and that such statement was an admission vitiating the decree. High Court held that an admission must be clear and unequivocal; a solitary sentence in cross-examination, in the context where the promissory note was executed on 06-06-2016 and the executant died on 08-09-2017 well within the limitation period, could not be construed as an admission negating the transaction. Both Courts below had considered the evidence including this aspect; no perversity made out. (Paras 11, 14–17)

1. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS / MONEY SUITS – Promissory note – proof of execution – plea of forgery – inconsistent defence – burden on defendant to substantiate.
   Suit filed on promissory note dated 06-06-2016 for Rs.2,50,000/- with interest; executant (husband/father of defendants) died on 08-09-2017. Plaintiff examined himself and an attestor (PWs 1 & 2) and proved the transaction. Defendants took mutually destructive pleas: that executant had no necessity to borrow, that the transaction is neither true nor correct and is avyavaharika debt, and also that the executant never signed the promissory note and signature is not his. Having pleaded forgery, defendants did not take steps to send the document to handwriting expert and led no evidence either on forgery or on alleged avyavaharika character. Both Courts accepted plaintiff’s evidence and decreed the suit; High Court refused to interfere.
   (Paras 3–6, 12–13, 24)

2. EVIDENCE ACT – Admissions – stray line in cross-examination – when not treated as binding admission.
   Defendants contended that PW1 admitted in cross-examination that during the life time of the executant he never demanded the amount under Ex.A1 and that neither he nor the executant informed the defendants about Ex.A1, and that such statement was an admission vitiating the decree. High Court held that an admission must be clear and unequivocal; a solitary sentence in cross-examination, in the context where the promissory note was executed on 06-06-2016 and the executant died on 08-09-2017 well within the limitation period, could not be construed as an admission negating the transaction. Both Courts below had considered the evidence including this aspect; no perversity made out.
   (Paras 11, 14–17)

3. HINDU LAW – Doctrine of pious obligation – effect of S. 6(4) of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – plea cannot be raised for first time in Second Appeal without pleadings or evidence.
   Defendants argued that the debt was not binding on them as sons under the doctrine of pious obligation. High Court noted that the doctrine stood nullified by Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 with effect from 05-09-2005. Further, there was no pleading on pious obligation in the written statement nor any evidence adduced. In the absence of both, such a plea cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in Second Appeal.
   (Para 19)

4. SECOND APPEAL – S. 100 CPC – Concurrent findings of fact – scope of interference – reiteration of principles in Kulwant Kaur and Hero Vinoth.
   Trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.2,93,000/- (principal Rs.2,50,000/- plus interest) against the estate of deceased in defendants’ hands; first appellate Court confirmed the decree in A.S. No. 27/2023. High Court, after referring to Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann (2001) 4 SCC 262 and Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal AIR 2009 SC 1481, reiterated that:
   – S.100 CPC imposes a definite restriction on second appeals;
   – concurrent findings of fact, even if erroneous, are not to be disturbed unless vitiated by perversity, application of wrong legal tests, reliance on inadmissible evidence, or ignoring material evidence;
   – a substantial question of law must be debatable and arise from the case as pleaded and found.
   On the facts, findings of both Courts were based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence; no substantial question of law arose. Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage.
   (Paras 20–24)

5. LIMITATION – Suit on promissory note – Article 34, Limitation Act, 1963 – death of executant within short period – no adverse inference from absence of demand during life time.
   Promissory note was executed on 06-06-2016; executant died on 08-09-2017, within about 15 months of execution. Court noted that the period of limitation to sue is three years from the date of execution (Art. 34). The mere fact that plaintiff stated he did not demand repayment during the executant’s life time could not, in such a time frame, be treated as fatal to the claim or as an admission negating the transaction.
   (Paras 15–17)

II. BRIEF ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW 

1. Factual matrix and pleadings (Paras 3–4, 6–7):

   • Plaintiff alleged that late G. Satyanarayana borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- on 06-06-2016 for family expenses and discharge of sundry debts, agreeing to repay with interest @ 12% p.a., and executed a promissory note (Ex.A1).

   • Satyanarayana died on 08-09-2017; defendants are his widow and sons. Plaintiff issued legal notice dated 09-10-2017 (Ex.A2); defendants 1 & 3 replied vide notice dated 21-10-2017 (Ex.A4); defendant 2’s notice returned unserved.

   • Suit O.S. No. 106/2017 was filed for Rs.2,93,000/- (Rs.2,50,000/- principal + interest).

   • Defendants’ written statement: denied necessity; termed transaction untrue and avyavaharika; denied execution and signature; alleged promissory note was created to grab property.

2. Evidence and concurrent findings (Paras 5–7, 12–13, 24):

   • Plaintiff examined as PW1; one attestor as PW2; Exs. A1–A5 marked.

   • Only D1 examined as DW1; no documents produced, no expert evidence sought although forgery was pleaded.

   • Trial Court accepted PWs 1 & 2; held execution and consideration proved; decreed suit against estate in hands of defendants with interest.

   • First appellate Court, as final fact-finding Court, framed points and dismissed appeal, confirming the decree.

3. Alleged “admission” of PW1 (Paras 14–17):

   • Defendants relied on one sentence in PW1’s cross-examination to contend there was an admission that no demand was made during executant’s life and no information given about Ex.A1.

   • High Court held that admission must be clear and unequivocal; here it was a solitary line and, seen against the timeline (note in 06-2016, death in 09-2017, three-year limitation), could not negate the claim or vitiate the decrees. Courts below had in fact considered overall evidence.

4. Pious obligation (Para 19):

   • Defendants attempted to invoke doctrine of pious obligation to deny personal liability as heirs.

   • Court recorded that the doctrine stands nullified by S.6(4) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and, in any case, there was neither pleading nor evidence on that aspect; such a contention cannot be raised for the first time in Second Appeal.

5. Scope under Section 100 CPC (Paras 20–24):

   • Court extracted and applied the ratio in Kulwant Kaur and Hero Vinoth on:

     • the narrow compass of S.100 CPC;

     • when concurrent findings can be interfered with (perversity, wrong legal test, ignoring material evidence, reliance on inadmissible material);

     • what constitutes a “substantial question of law”.

   • Concluded that findings on execution of Ex.A1, consideration, absence of proof of forgery, and absence of proof of avyavaharika debt were factual and well-supported by evidence; no perversity shown.

6. Result (Paras 24–25):

   • No substantial question of law, much less a debatable one, was made out.

   • Second Appeal was dismissed at admission stage; no order as to costs; all pending miscellaneous petitions closed.