IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of consideration applies to promissory notes once execution is admitted, placing the burden on the defendant to prove otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/defendant challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 20.12.1999, in O.S. No. 19 of 1998 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,33,450/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 07.05.1995 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- and for costs.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No. 19 of 1998, are as under:

Plaintiff and defendant are related to one another and are businessmen and the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 07.05.1995 for acquiring property and for construction of business complex and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. But, inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, defendant did not choose to pay any amount and has been postponing the same on one pretext or other. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

5. The defendant filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under:

This defendant did not execute the suit promissory note and it is a fabricated and forged document. The defendant purchased business complex which was constructed, from one Katakam Imam Hussain of Proddatur town, but not vacant site. His wife and the wife of plaintiff were the partners of a partnership firm and that his wife invested Rs.3,00,000/- in the said business and purchased the interest of another partner Konidena Indira and that the plaintiff actually managed the business and his wife has to get Rs.4,12,500/- towards her share including the investment and profit of the partnership business and when he insisted the plaintiff for the account and for dissolving the business, the plaintiff grew wild and wrongfully confined him, under those circumstances, he got issued a lawyer notice to the plaintiff. After receipt of notice, without giving any reply, the plaintiff forged the suit pronote with the help of his men and filed this suit.

After completion of evidence on behalf of both sides, the defendant amended his written statement as per orders in I.A. No. 1565 of 1999, dated 29.10.1999. The contents of which in brief as follows:

The plaintiff is running a number of unauthorized chits and he was one of the subscriber to the 5 chits conducted by the plaintiff and he was a prized bidder in all the chits and during the course of business of the plaintiff, they have obtained blank signed pronotes as additional security and the plaintiff might have created the suit pronote by using the one of the said blank pronote.

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

(i) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount?

(iii) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked and Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 were marked through Court.

8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 20.12.1999, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.

9. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for appellant/defendant and Sri Syed Ghouse Basha, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff.

10. The learned counsel for appellant would contend