The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Act is a statutory presumption and unless it is rebutted, it has to be presumed that consideration has passed.

JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved with the decree and judgment dt.24/11/2008 in O.S. No.611 of 2007 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada (for short "the trial court"), whereby dismissed the suit, the plaintiff therein has preferred the present appeal.

2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as depicted in the suit for convenience.

3. The brief averments culled out from the plaint are that the defendant borrowed Rs.3, 00, 000.00 from the plaintiff for her family expenses on 17/1/2005 and executed a promissory note on the same day, agreeing to repay the amount along with interest @ 24% per annum. However, despite the repeated demands and even after issuance of the registered legal notice dt.2/4/2007, the defendant failed to discharge the said debt. The defendant acknowledged the receipt of the notice on 3/4/2007.

4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the material allegations, contending that:

a) She is unaware of the plaintiff's name and has never seen the plaintiff, the scribe, or the attestors. Moreover, the defendant never borrowed any amount, and she never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 17/1/2005 for Rs.3, 00, 000.00 and did not require such a large sum; hence, there is no debtor-creditor relationship.

b) Following the plaintiff's legal notice, she issued a registered notice on 2/4/2007 requesting a Xerox copy of the alleged promissory note and reserving the right to send a detailed reply upon receipt of the alleged promissory note. The plaintiff remained silent.

c) The defendant subscribed to two chits each for Rs.50, 000.00 operated by one V. Laxmi Kantamma of Poornandampet, Vijayawada; She required the defendant to obtain signatures on two blank promissory notes from other Government Employees for different chits because her income was insufficient. Because of confidence in the defendant being the co-employee, V.Sita Rama Raju, D.Rajeswari, and other employees also handed over the blank promissory notes at Vadlamudi Laxmi Kantamma's house. At the 14th instalment of the auction, the defendant also handed over two blank promissory notes to the said, Laxmi Kantamma. On being asked, the defendant and D.Rajeswari went to Laxmi Kantamma and promised to return the said promissory notes. Surprisingly, the said Rajeswari received the notice from G. Rajani on 30/1/2003. On inquiry, the defendant and Rajeswari learned that the said Laxmi Kantamma had fabricated one promissory note and issued a notice. The said G. Rajani filed a suit in O.S. No.187 of 2003 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Vijayawada. The suit was dismissed on 29/11/2005. In that suit, the defendant (Y. Mary Metelda) testified as DW.2.

d) They said Laxmi Kantamma had a grudge against Rajeswari and the defendant; she told some people that she would use blank promissory notes to sue Rajeswari and the defendant. While doing so, the said Laxmi Kantamma used the blank promissory note and filed a suit in OS.No.166 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court in the name of Borra Punna Rao for Rs.1, 30, 000.00. The said Rajeswari has contested, and the case is still pending.

5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial.

1) Whether the suit promissory note is true and genuine?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount?

3) To what relief?

6. During the trial, On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 5 got examined and marked Exs.B.1 and B.2. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the suit with costs.

7. The following contentions were raised by the appellant's counsel in support of the grounds taken in the appeal; the Trial court has not dealt with the issues in proper perspective and has not considered the material evidence available on record, which establishes the factum that the defendant executed the Ex.A1 promissory note