HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by both the Courts below in the suit filed by the appellant in OS 220/1998 and in RA 47/1999 by orders dated 30. 7. 1999 and 7. 9. 2000 respectively.

( 2 ) THE appellant had filed a money suit for recovery against the respondent before the Trail Court based on the pro-note. According to the appellant/plaintiff, defendant/respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 28. 6. 1996 and Rs. 20,000/- on 10. 10. 1996 from the plaintiff by executing on demand promissory notes. He had agreed to pay interest at rate of 24% p. a. The defendant had paid only Rs. 5,000/- on 28. 7. 1998 and failed to pay the remaining amount. A suit was filed for recovery of the money and the same was contested by the defendant by denying the same. The Trial Court has raised as many as six issues casting the burden on the plaintiff to prove that whether the defendant had borrowed the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- on 28. 6. 1996 and on 10. 10. 1996 respectively by executing promissory notes. In this regard, evidence was let in and the trial court after considering the material on record, in a detailed order, has stated that there is contradictory versions as to the execution of the document in the presence of the witnesses and disbelieving the version of the plaintiff, has held that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the promissory note and accordingly dismissed the suit against which, an appeal was preferred before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Hospet. In appeal, the finding of the Trial Court was upheld and the appeal came to be dismissed. This appeal is against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below by raising substantial question of law to the effect that as per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once there is execution of promissory note, it is deemed that there is a transaction and the respondent is liable to pay the amount due in view of Sec. 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 3 ) HEARD the counsel for the appellant and the respondent. It is the submission of the Counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below failed to take note of the fact that once there is an admission it need not be proved by the plaintiff and as per provisions of Sec. 19 and 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the plaintiff produced the documents and the signature is admitted, the presumption goes in favour of the plaintiff and both the Courts below ignoring the legal position, have simply dismissed the suit and the appeal respectively. Accordingly, he contended that there is merit in the appeal and substantial question of law to be answered by this Court. In support of his argument, Learned Counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court in J. Rajanna Setty Vs. Sri Patel Thimma Gowda ILR 1998 KAR 1825. K. Narayana Reddy Vs. N. M. Muniyappa, ILR 1999 KAR 3200 And H. Maregowda and Ors Vs Thippamma and Anr 2000 (2) KCCRSN 9.

( 4 ) PER contra, Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Trial Court having rightly appreciated the factual position and also the evidence on record and the contradictory version of the witnesses, has held that the alleged document produced by the plaintiff has not been proved by him and referring to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in AIR 1976 Allahabad 23 wherein it is held that 'execution of a document means signing a document written out read over and understood and does not consist of merely signing a blank paper, held that the plaintiff has failed to prove due execution of the transaction in connection with the alleged promissory note and rightly dismissed the suit which was affirmed in appeal. It was further contended that when there is a clear concurrent finding, in appeal this Court cannot go into an inquiry to re-appreciate the evidence and in the factual background and circumstances of the case, the decision relied upon by the appellants Counsel are not applicable to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document