This Second Appeal is filed challenging the decree and judgment passed by the 9th Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, (Fast Track Court) Hyderabad in A.S.No.255 of 2002 reversing the decree and judgment passed by the 9th Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.4308 of 1999.

I have heard both the learned counsel.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.65,750/- alleging that at the request of the defendant, she advanced an amount of Rs.50,000/- to him and acknowledging the borrowing of the amount, the defendant executed a receipt on a stamped paper agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. Subsequently, when the amount was not paid in spite of demands made by the plaintiff, she got issued a legal notice dated 14-5-1999 demanding the repayment of the amount together with interest. Having received the same, the defendant got issued a reply dated 6-6-1989 interalia admitting his signature on the said receipt and contending that the signature was obtained under coercion.

In his written statement, the defendant having admitted that he has acquaintance with the plaintiff and her husband, contended that they purchased shares in Priyadarshini Consultancy Company Limited and when the Company went into losses, the husband of the plaintiff coerced the defendant to put his signatures on stamp papers and forced to pay the amount invested to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The defendant states that by making use of the signatures on the stamp paper, the husband of the plaintiff fabricated the receipt and got filed the present suit to have unlawful gain.

Basing on the rival contentions, the learned trial Court framed the following issues and additional issue.

Issues:

i] Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

ii} Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?

iii} To what relief?

Additional issue:

i) Whether the plaintiff is professional money lender?

To establish the respective contentions, the plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 and examined her husband as P.W.2. The defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and did not mark any documents.

Learned trial Court did not consider Ex.A.1 as promissory note since it does not contain the recital that the defendant undertookto repay the amount together with interest on demand. The learned trial Court having considered that the admission made by the defendant about the signature on Ex.A.1 receipt held that the presumption available to the defendant under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not available to him since Ex.A.1 is not a promissory note or any other negotiable instrument. The trial Court took the view that in spite of admission of the defendant about his signature on Ex.A.1, the entire burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A.1 as well as passing of consideration thereunder and ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove both the execution of Ex.A.1 as well as passing of consideration.

Learned first appellate Court having accepted the finding of the trial Court that the instrument Ex.A.1 is not a promissory note, reversed the finding of the trial Court regarding dismissal of suit on the ground that since the defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A.1 receipt and specifically contended that it was obtained by coercion and he received no consideration under the said document, burden lies on him to prove that it was obtained by coercion and no consideration was passed and consequently on failure to prove the said fact by the defendant, the 1st appellate Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

Aggrieved of the same, the defendant filed the present Second Appeal.

The substantial question of law raised in the grounds of appeal by the defendant is that the first appella