THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN SECOND APPEAL No.1460 of 2010 ORDER: Against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.52 of 2009 dated 09.11.2010 passed by the VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Gooty, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.100 of 2007 dated 24.04.2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, this Second Appeal is filed. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the Suit in O.S.No.100 of 2007, which was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,56,666/- being the principal and interest due by the defendant based on the promissory note dated 10.05.2005 executed by her in favour of the plaintiff by borrowing Rs.1.00 lakh from the plaintiff with interest at 24% p.a. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant had borrowed Rs.1.00 lakh from him on 10.05.2005; she had executed a promissory note in his favour on 10.05.2005 itself agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a.; despite several demands, the debt was not repaid; the plaintiff had got issued a legal notice which was received by the defendant; and the defendant, though an agriculturist, was not entitled for the benefits under the Agricultural Indebtness Relief Act. The case of the defendant before the trial Court was that the plaintiff’s wife was running chits in the year 2004; the defendant was also one of the members of the chit; it was customary for the plaintiff’s wife to take the signatures from the prized members in the chit on an empty promissory note; and likewise the defendant’s signatures were also obtained on empty promissory notes. In reply to the legal notice dated 28.02.2005 issued by the plaintiff, the defendant had sent her reply dated 14.03.2005 referring to the existence of an empty promissory note in the custody of the plaintiff. The case of the defendant, in short, is that since she had replied to the legal notice dated 28.02.2005 that the earlier debts of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- had not been borrowed at all, the question of the plaintiff again lending Rs.1.00 lakh on 10.05.2005 within two months from the date of the reply notice dated 14.03.2005 was absurd; and the trial Court had grossly erred in accepting the plaintiff’s version that such a sum had indeed been lent to the defendant. The trial Court held that it was not even the case of the defendant that the plaintiff had either forged her signature or had fabricated Ex.A.1; the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4 proved that the defendant had borrowed Rs.1.00 lakh from the plaintiff in the presence of the attestors and the scribe of Ex.A.1; the defendant had not sent any reply to the legal notice issued on behalf of the plaintiff for the amount borrowed of Rs.1.00 lakh; the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4, coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.3, established that the defendant had borrowed Rs.1.00 lakh from the plaintiff and had executed Ex.A.1, promissory note in the presence of the attestor and the scribe. When the matter was carried in appeal by the defendant, the Appellate Court observed that the defendant could not substantiate the plea that the wife of the plaintiff used to do chit business in which she was a subscriber; the defendant, when examined as DW.1, could not remember the date on which she joined the chit; she could not give the date on which the chit was auctioned; the defendant’s version of participating in the chit could not be believed; the plaintiff had established, prima facie, that Ex.A.1 pronote, executed by the defendant, was fully supported by consideration; the plaintiff had discharged the burden of his passing on the consideration; the defendant had admitted her signature on Ex.A.2 pronote; she did not examine any of the chit subscribers with the plaintiff’s wife to substantiate her plea that there was a practice of obtaining signatures on blank pronotes for realising the prize money; the defendant, therefore, had miserably failed to rebut the plaintiff’s version with regards passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 pronote; and the trial Court had rightly decreed the suit. The only contention urged before this Court by Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, Learned Counsel for the appellant, is that both the Courts below had failed to consider the effect of Ex.B.2, which is the reply notice dated 14.03.2005 given by the defendant to the legal notice dated 28.02.2005 issued by the plaintiff with regards the amounts borrowed by her earlier; the said legal notice was just two months prior to the alleged borrowal dated 10.05.2005; it defied reason that a person would lend money to another who had earlier disputed having borrowed money; and this important piece of evidence was ignored by both the Courts below which gave rise to a substantial question of law necessitating interference by this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The notice dated 14.03.2005 was in reply to the earlier legal notice dated 28.02.2005 issued by the plaintiff which relates to the debts of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, repayment of which was not the subject matter of the Suit before the Courts below. Both the Courts below held that the defendant had admitted her signature on the pronote; PWs.1, 3 and 4 had deposed that the said pronote was executed in their presence; no evidence was let in to the contrary by the defendant; the plaintiff had discharged the initial onus of proving that money had been paid to the defendant on the security of the pronote signed by her; and the defendant had failed to adduce any evidence to the contrary. The question whether a person would lend money to another who had earlier disputed having to pay the debt is a matter relating to human conduct, and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The fact that both the Courts below held that Ex.A.1 pronote was signed by the defendant herself in the presence of PWs.1, 3 and 4, which was proved by the attestors and the scribe of the said document; amount having been paid on the basis of the pronote was also held to have been established. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises, under Section 100 CPC, is only when a substantial question of law arises for consideration. No question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:23.09.2011 usd