HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY S.A. No.529 OF 2010 Dated:18-06-2010 Between: Mummana Narasamma …Appellant AND Dudi Butcheyya …Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY S.A. No.529 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: Unsuccessful defendant before both the Courts below filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of Family- cum-Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry made in A.S.No.66 of 2008, dated 15.02.2010, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry made in O.S.No.44 of 2005, dated 06.02.2008 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.41,250/-. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the trial Court. The plaintiff instituted the above suit alleging that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from him on 23.1.2002 for her agricultural expenses by executing a demand promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In spite of the repeated demands, as the defendant failed to repay the debt, the present suit is came to be filed for recovery of the said amount. Contesting the suit, the defendant filed a written statement contending that she lost her unregistered mortgage deed along with her blank promissory note, which was in the custody of her brother-in-law and that the plaintiff was cultivating the land of Ac.2.03 cents in R.S.No.501/4, situated in Gadarada Village and used to pay Sistu at Rs.11,000/- per annum. Subsequently, the plaintiff failed to pay the amount of Sistu in the year 2003-2004, and that the plaintiff bore grudge against the defendant and spoiled the mango plants and other plants in the land of the defendant. It was alleged that the plaintiff in collusion with the brother-in-law of the defendant forged and fabricated the promissory note and filed the false suit and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues for trial. To prove the respective claims, the plaintiff examined P.Ws.1 to 4 on his behalf and marked Ex.A.1- promissory note. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined but no documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. Aggrieved, defendant preferred the first appeal. The lower appellate after re-appreciation of entire evidence and considering the defence of the defendant that she lost the promissory note and unregistered mortgage deed, which was stated to be in the custody of hr brother-in-law, and that the same was misused by her brother-in-law, held that she admitted the signature on the promissory note but failed to discharge the burden which cast upon her that she lost the promissory note and her brother-in-law misused the same, and on the other hand, the plaintiff proved the suit promissory note by examining its attestors, and accordingly dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of trial Court. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the material available on record. In the present case, to prove the suit promissory note, the plaintiff apart from himself examining as P.W.1 got examined the attestors-P.Ws.2 and 3 and the scribe-P.W.4, and that their evidence is consistent with regard to the borrowal of Rs.30,000/- by the defendant and her execution of Ex.A.1-promissioy note. A presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be drawn that the defendant had executed the promissory note only after receipt of the consideration. The concurrent findings so recorded by the Courts below on appreciation of the evidence in proper perspective do not give rise to any question much less substantial question of law to admit the second appeal. The Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JUNE 18, 2010 Tsr.