THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA SECOND APPEAL No. 1240 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, dismissing the appeal in A.S. No. 91 of 2007, filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2007, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor District, decreeing the suit O.S. No. 26 of 2001 filed by the respondent herein by directing the appellant to pay Rs.1,28,450/- with costs and future interest as detailed therein. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgments under appeal. The counsel for the appellant submitted that even though Ex. A1-promissory note is signed by two witnesses, the respondent except examining herself as P.W.1 did not examine any of them, and respondent having failed to discharge her obligation under Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act, of proving that the appellant had executed Ex.A1-promissory note, the Courts below committed an error in shifting the burden of proving Ex.A1-promissory note is a forged and fabricated document, and extending the principle of presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to the facts of the case. This contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. No doubt, the respondent except examining herself as P.W.1 did not examine any witnesses who are said to have signed on Ex.A1-promissory note. But that by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the genuineness of Ex.A1- promissory note, much less it is fatal, particularly when the execution of the same can be proved by the other evidence available on record. Though the appellant denied execution of Ex.A1-promissory note, the fact remains, the respondent to prove that Ex. A1-promissory note is genuine, relied on Exs. A2 and A3-notices exchanged in between her and the appellant and also Ex.X1-opinion of the expert, who upon comparing the signature of the appellant on Ex.A1- promissory note with that of his admitted signature, opined that the signature on Ex.A1-promissory note is the signature of the appellant. Considering this evidence let in by the respondent, both the Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that Ex.A1- promissory note is genuine. As the respondent proved that Ex.A1- promissory note is genuine and was executed by the appellant, the Courts below felt that burden is on the appellant to disprove the fact that he has not received the consideration mentioned in Ex.A1- promissory note. Even though the appellant claimed that there was enmity between the husband of the respondent and himself, and Ex. A1-promissory note is the result of that enmity, in the absence of the appellant proving the enmity, the Courts below came to the conclusion that Ex.A1-promissory note is not a fabricated document, that it was executed by the appellant, and that he received the consideration mentioned thereunder from the respondent and he is liable to pay the same to the respondent with interest. The findings recorded by the Courts below in the judgments under appeal, being concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith. This apart, there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, warranting its interference by this Court with the judgment under appeal, in exercise of its power under Section 100 C.P.C. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J. 23rd December, 2011 IBL