The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

1. The Appellants/Defendants have filed this present Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.01.2002 in O.S.No.95 of 2000 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal.

2. The trial Court, in its Judgment, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has, among other things, observed that the suit pronote-Ex.A.1 dated 15.03.2000 has been executed by Alexander and that the Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to the Judgment and Decree as prayed for in the plaint and accordingly, directed the Appellants/Defendants to pay the suit amount along with interest.

3. Before the trial Court, 1 to 3 issues have been framed for adjudication, in the main case. On the side of Respondent/Plaintiff, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.26 have been marked. On the side of Appellants/Plaintiffs, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B.1 to B.29 have been marked.

4. Being aggrieved against the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in the main suit, the Appellants/Defendants have preferred the present Appeal as aggrieved persons.

5. The Points that arise for determination in this Appeal are:

(i) Whether the suit pronote Ex.A.1 dated 15.03.2000 has been executed by Alexander (later deceased) for a valuable consideration?

(ii) Whether the Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount of Rs.2,17,500/-together with interest at 12% per annum etc.?

Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Point Nos.1 and 2:

6. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/ Defendants, the trial Court should have held that the suit Ex.A.1-Pronote dated 15.03.2000 has been a fabricated one for the purpose of the case and moreover, D.W.1 in her evidence has clearly stated that the signature appearing on the suit pronote seems to be that of her father and also she has added that the said signature does not have the usual characteristics of her father signature and as such, the trial Court has gone wrong in holding that the witness D.W.1 has admitted the signature to be that of her father in the pronote.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants urges that the trial Court having held that the Respondent/Plaintiff enjoyed a fiduciary relationship with the late Alexander and in fact, the trial Court must have held that the burden of establishing that the suit pronote has been really executed by the deceased Alexander and consideration of Rs.2 lakhs really passed thereunder is on the Respondent/Plaintiff, but this burden has not been discharged by the Respondent/Plaintiff, which has not been appreciated properly by the trial Court and added further, the trial Court has not drawn an adverse inference against the Respondent/Plaintiff because of the fact that P.W.1/Plaintiff in her evidence has stated that the late Alexander has taken out the printed pronote from the drawer, affixed stamp thereon and signed but it is the Respondent/Plaintiff who has written the figure of Rs.2 lakhs mentioned in the pronote.

8. Advancing her arguments, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that P.W.2 has not witnessed the execution of pronote by the late Alexander and the mere fact that the Respondent/Plaintiff is able to produce documents like loan applications etc. clearly go to prove that she has not only the access but the control and custody of the papers of late Alexander and even assuming that the signature seen on the pronote is genuine, the inescapable conclusion is that P.W.2/Plaintiff has misused the same.

9. Proceeding further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that in Ex.A.5 copy of the letter dated 15.09.2000 P.W.1/ Plaintiff refers to an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-as due payable under the pronote but the Ex.A.1-Pronote dated 15.03.2000 contents the figure of Rs.2,00,000/- but this aspect of the matter has not been adverted to by the trial Court in its Judgment.

10. That apart, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appe