This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., by the defendants in O.S.No.85 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda. Respondent filed that suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.95,175/-, with interest.

2. Respondent pleaded that she sold an extent of Ac.6.38 guntas of land in Sy.No.357 of Nalgonda, to the 1st appellant for a consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- in March 1991. It was her case that few months thereafter, the appellants approached her for a loan of Rs.1,95,500/-, for developing a mango garden in the land purchased by them. Respondent is said to have lent that amount, after obtaining promissory notes, executed by the 1st appellant, with the 2nd appellant, figuring as surety.

3. It was stated that the 1st appellant did not repay the amount even after two years, and that the matter was taken to the elders, viz., Gutha Mohan Reddy, Azaz Ahmed Asgar, B. Saidulu and G.Raju. They are said to have brought about a settlement, according to which, the respondent should restrict her claim to Rs.1,40,000/-; the appellants shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- and execute promissory notes for the balance of Rs.90,000/-. Respondent pleaded that on the date of settlement, the appellants paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- and executed three separate promissory notes of Rs.30,000/- each. The suit was filed on the strength of these promissory notes.

4. In their written statement, the appellants pleaded that they have not borrowed any amount, whatever, from the respondent. They also denied the payment of Rs.50,000/- and execution of three promissory notes on 13-4-1993, for a sum of Rs.90,000/-. It was contended that the allegation, such as, the respondent had advanced Rs.1,95,500/- to them, and that she had agreed to forego Rs.55,500/- from the principal, not to speak of the interest, is totally unbelievable. They specifically denied the execution, attestation and hand-writing on the promissory notes. They further alleged that the respondent is involved in money lending business and running chits. They urged that the relationship between themselves and the respondent after the purchase of the land were in fact, strained, so much so, they had to file O.S.No.53 of 1993, against the respondent, for perpetual injunction. Reference was also made to certain complaints made by them to the Police.

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment dated 09-03-1995. The respondent carried the matter in appeal by filing A.S.No.17 of 1995. in the Court of Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. The appeal was allowed on 13-07-2000, and consequently, the suit was decreed as prayed for. Hence, this Second Appeal.

6. Sri M.Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the three promissory notes, marked as Exs.A-1 to A-3, were forged and at any rate, not supported by consideration. He contends that, while the recital in the promissory notes is to the effect that the amount referred to therein, was paid contemporaneously, the pleading and evidence of respondent was that the consideration is traceable to the previous transactions. He submits that no evidence, whatever, was adduced, to establish the prior transactions, and it is totally unbelievable that the respondent, who sold her land for Rs.1,40,000/-, has chosen to lend a sum of Rs.1,95,500/-, to them, that too without taking any security. He contends that the evidence adduced by the respondent, in relation to the alleged promissory notes for Rs.1,95,500/- is so inconsistent and untrustworthy, that it cannot be given any weightage, whatever. He further submits that the presumption under Section 118 or the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the Act’) can not at all be drawn, in favour of the respondent, because she utterly failed to prove the execution of the promissory notes. Placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in G