This appeal is by the defendant arising out of a suit O.S.No.37 of 1986 filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for recovery of money based on a pronote. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 19.12.1988 but has been decreed by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.22 of 1989 by judgment and decree dated 20.10.1992. Hence, this second appeal.

2. The facts, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The respondent/plaintiff claimed that on 14.04.1985, the appellant/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a pronote – Ex.A1 on the same day. It was alleged that the said amount is repayable with interest at 24% per annum on demand and in spite of repeated reminders the defendant failed to discharge the liability. Hence, the plaintiff issued notice – Ex.A2 dated 09.12.1985 but the registered cover was returned refused by the defendant as per postal endorsement – Ex.A3. The plaintiff, thereafter, has filed the present suit on 01.04.1986.

(b) The defendant filed a written statement claiming that his wife was running chit business and in the course of the said business, she became indebted to several persons and in order to pay the creditors, the defendant had mortgaged his house in favour of the plaintiff and borrowed Rs.20,000/- on 27.10.1984. Later, as more money was required, the defendant again approached the plaintiff to borrow further amount and on executing second mortgage deed on 08.11.1984, the defendant borrowed further amount. However, with these two borrowings also he could not repay the entire amount and again approached the plaintiff and requested further loan of Rs.20,000/- to help his son in his business. The plaintiff was reluctant initially but later agreed to advance, but instead of obtaining third mortgage, the plaintiff desired the defendant to execute a pronote. The defendant, thereafter, executed the said pronote – Ex.A1 but after receiving the pronote the plaintiff stated that he required sometime to pay consideration, as he had already paid substantial amounts to the defendant and as such, believing the plaintiff, the defendant approached the plaintiff after a couple of days but the plaintiff evaded and thereafter, though the defendant approached the plaintiff several times, the promised amount was not paid. It is also alleged that defendant had also sent D.Ws.3 and 4 for demanding the amount but in spite of that the plaintiff did not pay the amount and on the contrary, agreed to pay the amount if defendant agrees to sell the mortgaged property to him for which the defendant was not agreeable, therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

3. It would be, thus, noticed on the above pleadings of the appellant/defendant that he denied passage of any consideration on execution of Ex.A1 pronote and as such, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the suit pronote is not supported by consideration?

2. To what relief?

4. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and as stated above, marked Exs.A1 to A3 whereas defendant examined himself as D.W.1 apart from D.Ws.2 and 3, who are attestors of Ex.A1 and D.W.4, who was scribe of Ex.A1.

5. While the plaintiff in his evidence asserts that the pronote was duly supported by consideration and executed in the presence of D.Ws.2 to 4, the defendant as well as all his witnesses assert that no consideration was paid either on the date of execution of Ex.A1 or thereafter. The trial Court considered the oral and documentary evidence and came to the conclusion that the defendant has successfully rebutted the presumption attached to Ex.A1 and consequently, dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court, however, on appeal has reversed the said decree by finding that the theory put forward by the defendant regarding the consideration being promised at a later point of time than that of Ex.A1 was not in conformity with his written statement. The lower appellate Court also felt that t