IMPORTANT POINT
The burden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption under Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by adducing convincing evidence to prove the non-existence of consideration.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appeal, under Sec. 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the decree and Judgment dtd. 19/1/2012 in O.S.No.204 of 2012 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry (for short, 'trial court').

2. The appellant is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.204 of 2012 seeking recovery of Rs.5,57,523.00 with subsequent interest and costs from the defendants based on the promissory note.

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: The defendants, who are husband and wife respectively, jointly borrowed Rs.4,00,000.00 from the plaintiff on 11/8/2010 for the family expenses and discharging sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., jointly executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. As the defendants did not choose to pay the due amount under the above promissory note, despite repeated demands and even after the issuance of legal notice dtd. 2/4/2012, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

5. In the written statement, the defendants contended that they never borrowed amounts from the plaintiff at any point of time; the plaintiff could not lend such a huge amount to them; the suit promissory note is a rank forgery which was brought into existence with the help of scribe and attestors, who are the plaintiff's henchmen; there is no creditor and debtor relationship between them and the plaintiff; they had no necessity to borrow any amount from the plaintiff or anybody; the question of filing of Insolvency Petition by them does not arise and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

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

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

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount with interest thereon?

(3) To what relief?

7. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A1 and A.2. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined, and no documents were marked.

8. After the trial completion and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

9. Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel representing the appellant/ plaintiff, contends that the trial Court overlooked a fundamental legal presumption outlined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, particularly under Sec. 118, which envisages that unless the contrary is proved, a suit promissory note is assumed to be executed for a valid consideration. The trial Court apparently considered the appellant's evidence but it failed to address the implausible and inaccurate testimony of DW.1's evidence. The counsel contends that the trial Court ought to have closely examined the DW.1's cross-examination, where she refuted her signatures on several documents including the vakalat, written statement, and the suit summons and the promissory note itself. The 1st respondent, who is the husband of the 2nd respondent (DW.1), did not enter into the witness box to put forth their case; as such, the trial Court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the 1st respondent for evading the witness box deliberately.

10. Despite granting adjournments, no representation is made on the respondents/defendants' behalf, and so, treated as heard.

11. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, the following points would arise for determination:

1) Is the Trial Court justified in holding that the Ex.A.1- promissory note is not true, valid, and supported by consideration?

2) Whether the Judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference?

POINT NOs.1 and 2:

12. The plaintiff is examined as PW.1. The 2nd defendant is examined as DW.1. Their evidence reiterated their stand taken in their respective pleadings. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff sent