( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 8-6-1989 passed in AS No. 18 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Proddutur, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 23-11-1987 passed in OS No. 20s of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Proddutur.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit OS No. 208 of 1987. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) THE respondent-plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,277. 60 being the principal and interest due on pronote dated 15-5-1984 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 6,000. 00 repayable with interest at 24 per cent per annum but claimed at 12 per cent per annum. The plaintiff s case is that on 15-5-1984 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed the suit pronote in his favour at Korrapadu village agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24 per cent per annum and that inspite of demand notice dated 6-5-1987, the defendant did not repay the amount- Hence, the suit.

( 4 ) THE defendant resisting the claim of the plaintiff filed his written statement. He disputed the receipt of Rs. 6,000. 00 and execution of the suit pronote. He further pleaded that he does not know the plaintiff. His positive plea is that the suit pronote could have come into existence under the following circumstances. In the village Kottala there was a faction between Donthireddy Lakshmi Reddy and Pedda Konda Reddy. The defendant belonged to the group of Pedda Konda Reddy in the said faction Donlhireddy Lakshmi Reddy was murdered on 15-8-1985. On 18-8-1985 while the defendant was answering calls of nature at Machanapalli, he was kidnapped by the co-brother of the deceased Lakshmi Reddy and some others, that he was taken to Kotha Kamanur village and detained unlawfully in a room belonging to Varadarajul Reddy and his signatures on three blank white papers beneath the stamps were obtained cocrcively and on threats and the suit pronote might have been fabricated on the said blank white papers. It is also the case of the defendant that in that connection he preferred a complaint in the police station at Rajupalem and Crime No. 36 of 1985 was registered against the followers of the deceased Lakshmi Reddy and ultimately the charge-sheet was filed in CC No. 83 of 1985 and after trial the accused were convicted for the said offence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 each. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff is a factionist belonging to the group of Lakshmi Reddy and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount that the plaintiff and his brother have indebted to others and in a suit filed against the plaintiffs family members, they have taken a plea that they are small farmers and that suit was also dismissed on that ground. The attestors and the scribe of the suit pronote are followers of Donthireddy Narayana Reddy who is the paternal uncle s son of the deceased Lakshmi Reddy. The defendant also pleaded that he did not receive the demand notice said to have been issued and that he never refused to receive the said notice.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial: (i) Whether the suit pronote is fabricated and devoid of consideration? (ii) Whether the suit pronote came into existence with ante-date under the circumstances as contended by the defendant in his written statement? (iii) To what relief?during the course of trial, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. Al to A3 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW1. The defendant got himself examined as DW1 and marked Exs. Bl to B4 on his behalf. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, the trial Court believed the version set up by the