The presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies when the execution of a promissory note is admitted, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove non-existence of consideration.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. G. Radha Rani, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - defendant No.1 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.140 of 2012 dated 19.11.2018 by the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. The respondent is the plaintiff.

3. The parties are hereinafter referred as plaintiff and defendant No.1 before the trial court.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.60,50,000/- submitting that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had acquaintance. They were known to each other for a long time and out of the said acquaintance, the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff and requested to advance a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs to meet his compelling business requirements and promised that he would repay the said sum within a short period. Accordingly, the plaintiff considered his request and advanced the said sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs to the defendant No.1 on 14.08.2006. The said amount was paid by the plaintiff through cash. While receiving the said sum, the defendant No.1 executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the said sum with interest @ 2 % per month. The above transaction was witnessed by two witnesses namely (1) Sri J.Vishnu and (2) Sri K.Prakash. After receiving the said sum, the defendant had not repaid either principal nor paid any monthly interest. The defendant did not keep up his word and did not discharge any part of the liability. The plaintiff approached the defendant as the time was getting lapsed. The promissory note was renewed, which could be seen on the reverse side of the promissory note, which was renewed on 10.08.2009. The plaintiff made several requests but the defendant did not come forward to make the payment. After several requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 gave an undertaking, dated 30.05.2012 in writing to repay the amount. Even after that undertaking, the defendant No.1 did not bother to make the payment despite several requests made by the plaintiff. Having left with no other alternative, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount.

4.1. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant not only borrowed money from him, but also from others. He borrowed an amount of Rs.1.5 crores from Sri Raghu Alam Setty of Mahindra Hills, Hyderabad, an amount of Rs.3.00 crores from Sri Gopal Rao of BHEL, Hyderabad, an amount of Rs.2.00 crores from Sri K.Rajaiah of Nizamabad, an amount of Rs.1.20 crores from Sri K.Krishna of Tirumulgherry, Secunderabad, an amount of Rs.1.00 crores from Sri S.Srikanth of Tirumulgherry, an amount of Rs.1.00 crore from Bank of India. The defendant became highly indebted. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant was due huge amounts running to crores of rupees and he was not discharging his liability to anyone. All of his properties i.e. his house and landed property, which he owned were all mortgaged to banks. The business, which the defendant was carrying out, was under huge loss and he was unable to pay amount to creditors. Recently, the plaintiff came to know that one of his properties, which was mortgaged to bank was sold without any permission from bank, even while the charge existed, which would amount to cheating the bank. He further submitted that the defendant was highly indebted to many people and was trying to run away from the jurisdiction of the Court.

5. The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the suit transaction as well as the renewal endorsement. The case of the defendant was that the plaintiff lent only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the defendant promised to repay the same with interest @ 2 % per month and he paid the interest regularly. The defendant contended that apart from the suit promissory note, the plaintiff also received three (03) other promissory notes by lending a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on each promissory note. They were misused and suits were filed in the names of plaintiff's relatives and friends. All the four (04) promissory notes were blank at the time