The admission of execution of a promissory note shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that no consideration was passed.

JUDGMENT :

Defendant filed the above second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2022 in A.S.No.195 of 2019 on the file of VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2019 in O.S.No.147 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties to this judgment are referred to as per their array in suit.

3. Plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.147 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram for recovery of an amount Rs.6,27,750/-, principal being Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. In the plaint, it was contended inter-alia that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 03.01.2016 for the purpose of his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @18% per annum. In spite of repeated oral demands, defendant failed to repay the amount. Defendant started proclaiming to alienate his agricultural land. Hence suit was filed for recovery of amount.

5. Defendant filed written statement and contended inter-alia that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and he has no necessity to borrow money from the plaintiff; that suit promissory note is not supported by consideration; that plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount; that brother of defendant filed two suits O.S.Nos.143 of 2017 and 144 of 2017; that first attestor and second attestor in the suit promissory note are relatives of defendants therein; that defendant subscribed a chit with Kukkala Suryanarayana and at the time of auction, said Suryanarayana obtained two empty promissory notes from the defendant and the plaintiff is close relative of the said person; that in view of disputes, plaintiff obtained blank promissory note from Suryanarayana and fabricated the same and filed the suit and thus, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :

(1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

(2) To what relief?

7. During the trial, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined the attestor and scribe of promissory note as P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of defendant, he examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked.

8. Trial Court on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence and also legal aspects, decreed the suit with costs vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2019. Aggrieved by the same, defendant filed appeal A.S.No.195 of 2019 on the file of VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. Lower appellate Court being the final fact finding Court, framed necessary points for consideration as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC and on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 18.02.2022. Assailing the same, the present second appeal is filed.

9. Heard Sri K. Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant.

10. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note Ex A-1. He would submit that the Courts below failed to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in a proper perspective. He would also submit that the Courts below ought to have sent Ex.A-1 promissory note to the expert for comparison.

11. Basing on the pleadings, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration :

(1) Whether Ex.A-1 promissory note is supported by consideration?

(2) Whether the defendant rebutted the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 having admitted execution of Ex.A-1?

12. Suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount on the strength of Ex.A-1 promissory note. Plaintiff, apar