No substantial question of law involved.

1. This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the decree and judgment dated 30.4.2004 passed in A.S.No.44 of 2003 on the file of VI Additional District Judge (III Fast Track Court), Warangal at Mahabubabad, wherein the decree and judgment dated 14.11.2002 passed in O.S.No.19 of 1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Mahabubabad was reversed. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that he and the defendants belong to Nellikudur Village in Warangal District. The first defendant, at the time of carrying on business at Nellikudur, approached the plaintiff on 15.03.1994 with a request to lend an amount of Rs.40,000/-for his business purposes. The plaintiff agreed to lend money if first defendant produces one surety. The second defendant who is wife of first defendant agreed to stand as surety. The plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the first defendant, who in turn executed promissory note dated 15.3.1994 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 2% per month. The second defendant also signed on the promissory note as surety. The first defendant incurred loss in the business and left the village in or around 1995 and has been staying at Hyderabad. The second defendant constructed a house bearing No.1-8-/19/1 in Kapra Municipality without the financial aid of first defendant. In spite of repeated requests, first defendant did not pay the amount covered under the promissory note. Hence the suit.

3. The first defendant filed written statement inter alia contending that the plaintiff is running chit business without licence and first defendant was one of the subscribers in three chits of prize amount of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.40,000/-. The first defendant issued three promissory notes as requested by the plaintiff. The first defendant left the village in the year 1994 as he incurred heavy loss in the business and staying at Hyderabad. The plaintiff met the first defendant and forced him to sell the house of second defendant bearing door No.1-98 situated at Nellikudur towards discharge of his entire debt including the amount of Rs.6,000/- borrowed under a separate promissory note. The first defendant was forced to file insolvency petition in a hasty manner before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. In order to satisfy the plaintiff, first defendant convinced second defendant to sell house bearing No.1098 which is her sthree dhana property, towards discharge of debts of first defendant. The plaintiff succeeded in his attempts to purchase the house at Rs.1,50,000/-. In order to avoid stamp duty, the plaintiff had undervalued the house in the sale deed. The plaintiff returned only three promissory notes, paid cash of Rs.2,500/- to second defendant and sent a message to first defendant. The registration of sale deed in favour of plaintiff is deemed to be the acknowledgement of receipt of money under the suit promissory note. The plaintiff has taken movables worth Rs.18,365/- laying in the house of second defendant. Hence the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs.18,365/-to the defendants. The plaintiff concocted the surety bond. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The second defendant filed memo adopting the written statement filed by the first defendant.

5. The trial court has framed necessary issues for trial and both the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. By judgment dated 14.11.2002, the trial court decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed appeal and the first appellate court allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred this second appeal.

6. The substantial questions of law urged before this court are as follows.

1. Whether an admission by a party needs any proof?

2. Whether the oral evidence has got any weight in the light of documents and of its admission?

3. Whether burden of pro