HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU SECOND APPEAL No.482 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 16.9.2008 in A.S. No.42 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2004 in O.S. No. 197 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, were confirmed. The appellant is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,312.50 on the foot of a promissory note. According to the plaintiff, on 30.5.1998, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 7500/- and executed the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay the amount and therefore, the plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit. The plea of the defendant is that he has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor executed the suit promissory note. He further pleaded that due to ill feelings and enmity, the plaintiff created the suit promissory note. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the suit pro note D/30.5.1998 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim ? 3. To what relief ? In order to prove his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs. A1 to A3. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined. However, no documentary evidence was let in. The trial Court after considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs. A1 and A2, came to the conclusion that the defendant executed the suit promissory note and accordingly decreed the suit. Challenging the same, the defendant carried the matter in appeal, being A.S. No.42 of 2004 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent- plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1 and the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the signature on Ex.A1 is that of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff failed to prove the same, the decree and judgment and decree of the trial Court, as confirmed by the lower appellate Court, through the impugned order are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below need not be interfered with. Hence, there are no grounds to admit the second appeal. In view of amendment to Section 100 of C.P.C., unless there is a substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, admission of a second appeal is not automatic or routine. Even on the question of law also, the second appeal need not be admitted. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the suit promissory note, Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant. In view of the fact that the defendant denied his signature and also denied the fact that he borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, the burden thereafter falls on the defendant. The evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that the defendant borrowed the amount under the cover of Ex.A1 and executed the suit promissory note. If the evidence of a solitary witness is found to be true and correct, there is no legal impediment to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of such witness. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. Perhaps, that is the reason why both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 and on the recitals of Ex.A1. Therefore, there is no other reason to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. Further, when the trial Court and the lower appellate Court after giving reasons placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 and the recitals in Ex.A1, it is clear that it is the plaintiff, who has executed the promissory note and once the initial burden stands discharged by the plaintiff, the onus shifts to the defendant to establish that he has not executed the promissory note. In view of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumption is the promissory note is duly executed and supported by consideration. The evidence of P.W.1 is clear that the promissory note executed is supported by consideration, the burden shifts to defendant to rebut the said presumption. To rebut the said presumption, except the oral testimony of D.W.1, there is no other evidence adduced to prove the same. He did not take any steps for sending the suit promissory note to an expert for comparison and opinion. Therefore, basing on these facts, the trial Court has decreed the suit, which was rightly confirmed by the lower appellate Court, through the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or contrary to law. Therefore, there are absolutely no reasons for interfering with the same. The second appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU,J DATE: 15.11.2010 pnb