The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict liability created by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the consequences of dishonored cheques and the presumption in favor of the holder.

1. The Appellant/Defendant has filed this instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2006 in A.S.No.171 of 2004 passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Trichirappalli in confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Munsif, Turaiyur dated 29.07.2004 in O.S.No.198 of 2002.

2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Trichirappalli, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.171 of 2004 on 10.10.2006, has, among other things, observed that 'the plea that Ex.A.1-Cheque has been given in an unfilled form is not acceptable and further Ex.A.1-Cheque is a complete one, which is a negotiable instruments'. Further, it opined that no receipts or other documents have been filed to establish that the Appellant/Defendant has paid a principal sum of Rs.10,000/- together with interest to the Respondent/ Plaintiff etc. and consequently, held that the Appellant/ Defendant has received a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the Respondent/ Plaintiff through Ex.A.1-Cheque, for which no interest or principal amount has been paid by the Appellant/Defendant and passed a decree by directing the Appellant/Defendant to pay the suit amount to the Respondent/Plaintiff and dismissed the Appeal with costs.

3. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2006 in A.S.No.171 of 2006 passed by the First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Trichirappalli, the Appellant/ Defendant has preferred this Second Appeal before this Court as an aggrieved person.

4. Earlier, before the trial Court in the main suit, on behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff witness P.W.1 (Respondent/Plaintiff) has been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Defendant, no witness has been examined and also no document has been marked.

5. On an appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court has come to a consequent conclusion that it is not true that the Appellant/ Defendant, as per her Written Statement, has received a loan of Rs.10,000/- only and has paid the same and further, it is held that Ex.A.1- Cheque has been issued by the Appellant/Defendant to the Respondent/Plaintiff for the loan amount of Rs.30,000/-received by him and as per Ex.A.1-Cheque, the Appellant/Defendant has received a sum of Rs.30,000/-from the Respondent/Plaintiff and finally, decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff as prayed for in the Plaint with costs.

6. The Appellant/Defendant filed A.S.No.171 of 2004 before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court viz., the Principal Sub Judge, Trichirappalli, after contest and after analysing the entire materials on record, has passed a Judgment in dismissing the Appeal on 10.10.2006 filed by the Appellant/Defendant.

7. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration:

"i) Whether the Courts below are correct in applying the principles contemplated under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the suit document?

ii) Whether the Courts below are correct in rendering a finding that the suit document is not affected by material alteration when the writings in the face of the documents are by different persons?

iii) Whether the Courts below are correct in placing the burden of proof regarding consideration on the defendant?

iv) Whether the Courts below are correct in applying the principles under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the civil suit when the documents per se and apparently on the face of it appears to be forged?"

The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Point Nos.1 to 4:

8. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have incorrectly applied the ingredients of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and further, both the Courts have failed to take into account of the fact that th