JAGANNADHA RAO, J. :- This reference to a Full Bench has been made on the ground that there is a conflict between Division Bench judgements, viz., M. Janaka Lakshmi v. Madhava Rao, AIR 1973 Andh Pra 103 rendered by Chinnappa Reddi, J. (as he then was) and A.D.V. Reddy, J. on the one hand and Maddam Lingaiah v. Hasan CCCA Nos. 95 and 96 of 1969 dt. 22-9-1972 rendered by M. Krishna Rao J. and M. Ramchandra Raju J. and Ponna Satyavathi v. Pamu Surya Rao L. P. A. 158 of 1977 dt. 26-12-1978 rendered by Kuppuswami J. (as he then was) and P.A. Choudary J. on the other hand. The point arises in the context of the presumption under S.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In Janaka Lakshmi's case (AIR 1973 Andh Pra 143) (supra) the Court disbelieved the defendant's plea as to the circumstances under which the promissory note was executed without consideration and the Court also disbelieved the plaintiff's story; but, even so, the Court held that even if the versions of both sides were not true, still the presumption under S.118 would operate and the suit was liable to be decreed. For that reason, the Court relied upon a judgement of the Bombay High Court in Tar Mahamed v. Tye