P. DEVADASS, J.

1. The defendants in O.S. No. 48 of 2007, who have succeeded before the trial Court/II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli since became unsuccessful in the First Appeal in A.S. No. 47 of 2009 before the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli are before us as appellants.

2. The respondent instituted the suit in O.S. No. 48 of 2007 for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/-plus interest totally Rs. 2,17,000/- on the allegations that on 15.06.2013, he advanced Rs. 1,50,000/- under a promissory note to the defendants, who are spouses, for interest and as they have not paid the accrued interest and the amounts were calculated and it was arrived at Rs. 2,00,000/- and a fresh promissory note for the same was executed on 05.05.2006. However thereafter, inspite of notice neither they have paid the interest nor the principal. Thus, the institution of the suit.

3. The appellants/defendants have filed written statement resisting the suit, contending that they have not borrowed Rs. 1,50,000/- as pleaded in the plaint. They have not executed any promissory note. Plaintiff filled a blank promissory note and made it suit promissory note.

4. The trial Court framed necessary issues and tried the suit. Voluminous evidence has been produced. The trial Court heavily relying on Ex.B.1, a letter dated 26.08.2013 of plaintiff concluded that that plaintiff has not proved the suit claim and thus dismissed the suit.

5. The unsuccessful plaintiff took the matter in appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli in A.S. No. 47 of 2009.

6. The first appellate Judge, came to the conclusion that the defendants having admitted their signatures in Ex.A.6, past consideration is a good consideration for a fresh promise under Ex.A6, applied Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and negatived the defendants' plea of blank promissory note. The defendants having admitted their signatures in Ex.A.6, it is incumbent upon them to rebut the presumption as to the consideration by leading proper evidence, however, they did not do so. On these premises, the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that Ex.B.1 indicates that there cannot be passing of consideration for a old promissory note on 15.06.2013, which was substituted by Ex.A.6 fresh promissory note. Ex.B.1 exposes that the plaintiff had not came to the Court with clean hands and with true facts.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the assertion that one's admission as to his signature in a promissory note is not equivalent to admission of the entire promissory note itself. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that Ex.A6 has been executed as a promissory note. However, the plaintiff did not do so. To drive home his point of view the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that actually no money/no consideration has been passed for the original promissory note. Referring to the year 1999, in the stamp paper in which Ex.A6 has been written would submit that the plea of the defendants that their signatures were obtained in blank stamp papers and subsequently they were filled up to suit the plaintiff's convenience has been brought out. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the well considered judgment of the trial Court ought not to have been uprooted by the first appellate Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants would plead for revival of the trial Court's judgment and decree annulling the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would put up a reverse argument. He would submit that the First Appellate Court's judgment should be upheld and the upsetting of the trial's Court judgment by the First Appellate Court is to be confirmed. To drive home his point of view, he would refer t