The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden of proof on the defendant to rebut this presumption.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed by the appellant/Defendant challenging the decree and Judgment, dated 28.03.2012 in O.S. No.13 of 2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, (for short, ‘trial court’).

2. Respondent, the plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S. No.13 of 2010 seeking recovery of Rs.7,52,000/-on the foot of a promissory note against the defendant.

3. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The facts leading to the present Appeal, in a nutshell, are as under:

(a) On 05.01.2008, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his business and family expenses and executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, despite repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit debt. On 02.02.2010, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to repay the suit debt and the same was received by the defendant, but he neither gave any reply nor complied with the demand.

(b) The defendant is not an agriculturist. He is not entitled to the benefits of Act 7 of 77, Act 45 of 87, Act 2 of 90 and Act 3 of 38.

5. Defendant filed the written statement, contending that he did not borrow money from the plaintiff on 05.01.2008 and the suit promissory note was a forged one. After receiving legal notice, the defendant placed the matter before the elders, and the plaintiff admitted that he issued legal notice due to oversight. Hence, the defendant did not reply, and this suit was filed due to political rivalry. The plaintiff cannot lend the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/-and has no property. The defendant is an agriculturist and is entitled to the benefits of Act 4/38; the attachment of the defendant's landed property shows that he is an agriculturist.

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

(1) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid, and supported by consideration?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

(3) To what relief?

7. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined, and no documents were marked.

8. After the completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court partly decreed the suit for Rs.5,00,000/- with proportionate costs with interest @ 12.5% p.a., on a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-from the date of pronote till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization.

9. Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, contends that the burden of establishing Ex.A.1 is on the respondent/plaintiff and not on the appellant as per law; PW.1 did not even state that the scribe and attestors were present at the time of execution of Ex.A.1 and payment of consideration and PW.2 scribe stated that he scribed the Ex.A.2 and went away and that the attestors were not examined. Consequently, the execution of Ex.A.1, including the appellant's signature, is not proved. The trial Court should have seen that the plaintiff should send Ex.A.1 to an expert to establish his case. He further contends that the plaintiff failed to establish that he could lend such a huge amount, and the trial Court failed to consider this aspect. The trial Court should have dismissed the suit as Ex.A.1 is a forged document, and no consideration is passed. The trial Court erred in not framing any issue as to whether the appellant is an agriculturist and is entitled to the benefit of Act 4 of 1938.

10. Per contra, Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contends that the trial Court correctly appreciated the case facts and came to a correct conclusion. The reasons given by the trial Court do not require any i