( 1 ) THE appellant and respondent are brothers. The respondent filed Original suit No. 60 of 1983 in Subordinate Judge s Court at Proddatur for recovery of rs. 16,176/- with costs etc. , based on Ex. A-1 pronote dated 16-7-1977 alleging that for a consideration of Rs. 9,800/- the appellant had obtained from him, he executed the suit pronote and had agreed to repay it with interest at 12 per cent per annum. On demand he paid Rs. 500/- on 16-7-1980 regarding which an endorsement was made on the back of Ex. A-l and in spite of the demand and the notice issued to him as per Ex. B-1, which was replied as per Ex. A-3 he did not pay the amount and therefore he had to file the suit. The defendant resisted the suit by denying the execution of the suit pronote and passing of the consideration thereunder. He sought for the dismissal of the suit. These issues were framed: (1) Whether the suit pronote is supported by consideration ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the claim from the defendant? (3) To what relief ? ,

( 2 ) THE plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 1 and two witnesses as P. Ws. 2 and 3, where as the defendant examined himself as D. W. I and this was by way of oral evidence. By way of documentary evidence Ex. A-l to A-3 were marked for the plaintiff and Ex. B-l to B-4 were marked for the defendant. After hearing both the sides and with the materials, the learned Subordinate Judge held that suit pronote is executed by defendant, bu t it is not supported by consideration. Consequently the suit was dismissed. Thus the plaintiff preferred the appeal. The learned District Judge after hearing both the sides and after reassessment of the whole material before him came to the conclusion that the suit pronote is supported by consideration and therefore set aside the finding of the learned subordinate Judge and also judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit. Consequently by allowing the appeal he decreed the suit. That has resulted in the present Second Appeal by the defendant in the suit.

( 3 ) IN view of the concurrent finding of the courts below that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the suit pronote, Ex. A-l, by defendant and for the adequate reasons given by them this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the same. Therefore the only question of variance between the courts is whether the suit pronote is supported by consideration or not.

( 4 ) THE learned advocate for the appellant has raised the following questions of law or substantial questions of law which requires to be considered in this second Appeal viz. , (1) The question whether the suit pronote Ex. A1 is supported by consideration or not is wrongly decided by the learned District Judge by drawing wrong inferences without going in to the question of burden of proof and shifting of focus and burden of this case on the plaintiff to establish that the suit pronote is supported by past consideration and not the consideration pleaded in the plaint and stated in the evidence. (2) The reasoning of the learned District Judge in support of the view that the suit pronote is supported by consideration is against the evidence in the case and the facts and circumstances emanating from evidence is erroneous.

( 5 ) THE judgment of the learned District Judge unnecessarily interfered with the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the suit pronote is not supported by consideration as pleaded which was supported by evidence and adequate reasons. The judgment of the learned District Judge is liable to be set aside both on facts and in law.

( 6 ) MR. Sanath Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent while trying to repel the above contentions has contended that when once the plaintiff proved the execution of the suit pronote by the defendant he was to do nothing more and the learned Subordinate Judge was totally wrong in unnecessarily entering into the question whether the consideration as pleaded by the plaintiff was es