1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.11.2011, passed in A.S.No.13 of 2011 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvanamalai, modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 05.01.2011, passed in O.S.No.76 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Chengam.

2. The defendant in the suit for recovery of money based on promissory notes, has preferred the above second appeal. The respondent/plaintiff had laid the case based on two promissory notes marked as Exs.A.1 and A.2, dated 01.09.2006, for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each. As the money was not repaid, the suit has been laid.

3. Denying the averments leading to the cause of action in the suit, the appellant/defendant had stated that he has been cultivating the lands of the respondent/plaintiff based on an oral lease. As the lease was an oral one, the respondent/plaintiff had brought one Ranganathan on 01.09.2006 and wrote the two promissory notes, and the same were signed by the defendant as a token thereof. The defendant denied any passing of consideration based on the promissory notes.

4. The trial court decreed the suit in so far as only one of the promissory notes is concerned holding that though, two promissory notes were executed, the second one was only for the purpose of interest and held that only consideration passed under one promissory note.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.13 of 2011 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Thiruvanamalai, and the defendant also had preferred a cross appeal in A.S.No.74 of 2011, challenging the decree passed. The Appellate Court decreed the suit, as prayed for and dismissed the cross appeal.

6. Before the Trial Court, the respondent/plaintiff, apart from examining himself as P.W.1, examined Mr.Devindiran and Mr.Appasamy as P.Ws.2 and 3, who are witnesses to the pronote, and the said Ranganathan as P.W.4, who is the scribe of Exs.A.1 and A.2. Exs.A.1 to 5 were marked on his side. The appellant/defendant, apart from deposing herself as D.W.1, also examined one Mr.Ramasamy as D.W.2, and he had chosen not to mark any documents his side.

7. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court for consideration:

"(i). Whether the execution of two promissory notes on the same day each for Rs.25,000/- would create suspicion and whether said suspicion would rebut the legal presumption in favour of the plaintiff?

(ii). Whether the Courts below were right in simply ignoring the evidences of witnesses examined by the plaintiff wherein they have admitted during cross-examination that they did not see any amount being paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time when the two promissory notes have been executed?"

8. It is the consistent case of the respondent/plaintiff that on 01.09.2006, the appellant/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- in the morning and on the same day, he borrowed another sum of Rs.25,000/- in the evening, agreeing to repay the same on the agreed interest rate and executed Exs.A.1 and A.2, promissory notes. The execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2 were not denied by the appellant/defendant. In fact, the appellant/defendant has specifically admitted the execution of the suit promissory notes. However, he only denied that they were not supported by any consideration and the same were executed as a security for the oral lease taken by him from the respondent/plaintiff.

9. Admittedly, the promissory notes were written by one Ranganathan. Once, the execution is admitted by the appellant/defendant, the burden of proof on the respondent/plaintiff is discharged and the onus automatically shifts on the appellant/defendant to prove the passage of consideration. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the attestors of the documents and P.W.4 is the scribe of Exs.A.1 and A.2.

10. As stated earlier, since the appellant/defendant himself has admitted the execution of the promissory notes, the evidence of attestors need not be gone int