( 1 ) PLAINTIFF in O. S. No. 10 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the subordinate Judge, Kandukur, is the appellant for the sake of convenience, the parties would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the Trial Court.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 30,330/- being the principal and interest due on the promissory note dated 17-12-1981, executed by late Pothula venkata Narasaiah husband of the first defendant and father of the Defendants 2 and 3. The contention of the defendants is that the suit promissory note is a renewal of the earlier promissory notes and since the executant of the suit promissory note was an agriculturist within the meaning of a. P. (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief act, 1938, hereinafter referred to as Act 4 of 1938, the transaction has to be reopened and interest has to be scaled down and if it is so scaled down the amount payable by them would only be Rs. 9,890. 06 ps. and that they have no objection for passing a decree for the said amount.

( 3 ) BASING on the pleadings the Trial court framed four issues for trial. In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as p. W. 1 and the attestors of the suit promissory note as P. Ws. 2 and 3, and the suit promissory note is marked as Ex. A. 1, In support of their case defendants examined one witness as D. W. 1 and marked Exs. B. 1 to B. 18 on their behalf. On Issue No. 1, which relates to the question whether the plaintiff lent Rs. 24,800/- under Ex. A. 1, on issue No,2, which relates to the question whether the suit promissory note is liable to be scaled as per the provisions of the act 4 of 1938 and on Issue No. 3, which relates to the principal amount lent by the father of the plaintiff to the executant under Ex. A. l as mentioned in Para 5 of the written statement the Trial Court held in favour of the defendants, and consequently on Issue No. 4, which relates to the relief, passed a decree for Rs. 9,890,06 ps. with interest at 6% per annum on Rs. 3,400/- from the date of suit till the date of realization. Hence this appeal.

( 4 ) THE main contention of the leaned counsel for the plaintiff is that the Court below erred in finding on Issues 1 to 3 in favour of the defendants though there is no reliable evidence on record to show that exs. B. 4 to B. 11 are true and genuine, only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, placing absolute reliance on the evidence of d. W. 1, who admittedly has no personal knowledge about the said transactions. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the defendants is that since the calculations found in Exs. B. 4, 5, 7 and 9 and the endorsements on Exs. B. 6, 8, 10, and 11 clearly show that the suit promissory note is a renewal of those promissory notes and since the Trial Court gave cogent reasons for its conclusion that the suit promissory note is a renewal of earlier promissory note there are no grounds to interfere with the decree and judgment of the Trial Court.

( 5 ) AT the out set I must state that the trial Court did not frame the issues properly and had obviously overlooked the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable instruments Act. Obviously the Court below failed to note that defendants admitted execution of Ex. A. 1. Since their case is that Ex. A. 1 is a renewal of an earlier promissory note, which is not referred to in ex. A. 1, it is for them to establish the said fact and so the burden to establish that ex. A. 1 is a renewal promissory note of an earlier promissory note is on the defendants and so as per Rules 1 and 3 of Order 18 cpc it is the defendants that have to lead the evidence in the first instance, because had the parties not adduced evidence on their behalf, in view of the admission of the defendants in their written statement about the execution of Ex. A. 1 and section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, and Section 102 of Evidence Act, plaintiff would have been entitled to a decree in his favour. Because of the wrong casting of Issue No. 1 plaintiff h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document