J U D G M E N T

The suit has been filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money based on a pro-note executed by the appellant for a sum of Rs.75,000/- as a loan to meet his expenses.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed the said sum of Rs.75,000/-, on 15.03.2010 undertaking to repay the said sum, on demand, together with interest at 12% p.a. The suit promissory notice has also been witnessed by P.W.2 who has been examined on the side of the plaintiff.

3. The case of the appellant is that they were earlier chit transactions and the plaintiff already issued a legal notice Ex.B.1 and the appellant/defendant has also sent a reply stating that he was not liable to pay the said amount of Rs.50,000/- claimed in Ex.B.1 notice and that it was only the plaintiff who had to pay the defendant the chit amount.

4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the witness to the pro-note as P.W.2.

5. On 19.01.2022, this Court has admitted the above Second Appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law:-

(a) Whether the Courts below are right in shifting the burden of proof of passing of consideration, on the defendant, when the defendant