THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SECOND APPEAL No.1469 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated, 01.04.2011, passed in A.S.No.61 of 2008 by the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, whereunder and whereby the decree and judgment, dated 27.08.2008, passed in O.S.No.9 of 2006 by the Junior Civil Judge, Banganapalli, is confirmed. 2. The appellant herein is the 1st defendant, the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent herein is the 2nd defendant in the suit. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit in the trial Court. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- basing on the promissory note. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 10-02-2003, the 1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from the 2nd defendant and executed Ex.A-1-promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 12% per annum, that later the plaintiff by paying a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the 2nd defendant on 01-09-2005, got transferred the suit promissory note in his name by way of Ex.A-2-endorsement, that in spite of several demands and in spite of issuing legal notice, the 1st defendant failed to pay the suit amount, and hence the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants. 4. The 1st defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. He stated that he never borrowed any money from 2nd defendant and he never executed the suit promissory note, dated 10-02-2003 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- in favour of 2nd defendant; that 2nd defendant is living by doing coolie work and has no capacity to lend the money to the 1st defendant; that the 2nd defendant is his uncle and he pressurised 1st defendant to marry his daughter and as he refused to marry his daughter, the daughter of 2nd defendant filed CC.135/2003 against him and the same was dismissed; that the suit promissory note is a forged document and hence the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A- 5 were marked. On behalf of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant was examined as DW.1 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. The 2nd defendant remained ex-parte. 6. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration and accordingly, decreed the suit. Challenging the same, the 1st defendant filed appeal before the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal and the same was dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the present Second Appeal is filed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/1st defendant contended that the appellant denied execution of Ex.A-1-promissory note and that D-2 has no capacity to lend the amount. He further submits that the execution of Ex.A-1 was not established beyond preponderance of probability and, therefore, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 8. In view of amendment to Section 100 CPC, filing of Second Appeal is not automatic or routine. The appellant has to raise substantial questions of law. If both the courts gave perverse finding or findings are not based upon admissible evidence, or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration are some of the instances, under which the Second Appeal can be admitted. 9. The suit is based upon Ex.A-1-promissory note said to have been executed by 1st defendant in favour of the transferee of the plaintiff i.e., 2nd defendant. By virtue of Ex.A-2-endorsement, the suit promissory note has been transferred in favour of PW.1. Though PW.1 may not be having knowledge about execution of Ex.A-1 and passing of consideration under Ex.A-1, but at the same time, if there is any other evidence to show about execution of Ex.A-1, and passing of consideration, the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can be drawn. Before drawing the said presumption, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that Ex.A-1 executed by 1st defendant is supported by consideration. The transferor of PW.1 was not examined. But, PW.2, who is an attestor, has categorically stated that Ex.A-1 was executed by 1st defendant and consideration was passed thereon on 10-02-2003. It is not in dispute that D- 2, who is the original lendor used to attend the coolie work. One of the contentions raised is that the 2nd defendant had no capacity to lend such amount. From the evidence on record, it is clear that 2nd defendant was also doing mango business and therefore, it cannot be said that he is not having sufficient means. Though it is contended by D-1, that he did not sign on Ex.A-1-promissory note, except his oral assertion, he has not produced any piece of evidence to show that the signature on Ex.A-1 does not belong to him. 1st defendant has also not taken any steps to send the disputed document to the handwriting expert to prove his contention that the signature on Ex.A1 does not belong to him. Nothing has been elicited in their cross examination to doubt the testimony of PWs.1 and 2. Once the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 is accepted, it is clear that D-1 executed promissory note in favour of D-2 and consideration was passed thereunder to 1st defendant under Ex.A-1. Once the initial burden lying on plaintiff stands discharged, the burden shifts on 1st defendant to show that Ex.A-1 was not supported by consideration, as required U/s.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No such evidence is adduced by the 1st defendant to show that Ex.A-1 was not supported by consideration. Therefore, considering the factual aspects of the case, the trial court rightly decreed the suit and the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court was also confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 10. There is no questions of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 28-11-2011 Prv