Judgement JUDGMENT:- This appeal is by the defendant and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Cachar, in Money Suit No. 21 of 1965. 2. The facts briefly are that the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff, on 31-7-63, Rs. 6,000/- by executing three hand-notes, each for Rs. 2000/- promising to repay the amounts on demand with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per month. According to the plaintiff the three hand-notes were executed by the defendant on the same date for the convenience of repaying the amounts. The plaintiffs further case is that the defendant borrowed another sum of Rs. 1,000/- from him on 17-5-64 without any document and promised to repay this sum also with interest. As the defendant has failed to pay the amount in spite of demands, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for Rs. 8,500/- inclusive of interest. 3. The defendant has filed a written statement resisting the plaintiffs suit. His material pleas are that he is a big businessman dealing in dry fish. The plaintiff also, at the relevant time, had business in dry fish, but he has closed his business in fish in preference to business of money-lending. His case is that he borrowed from the plaintiff Rs. 2,000/- on 14th Jaistha and Rs. 1000/- on 13th Ashara of 1370 B.S. without documents. The defendant again requested the plaintiff for a loan of Rs. 3,000/- but the plaintiff agreed to pay that amount later on and asked the defendant to execute the three hand-notes on 31-7-63 for Rs. 6,000, for the amount of Rupees 3,000/- already taken and for Rs. 3,000/-, which was promised to be paid later. According to the defendant, no money was paid on 31-7-63 except a small sum of Rs. 5/-. Later on, it is pleaded, the plaintiff paid him Rs. 2,500/- on 21st Sravana, Rs. 300/- on 2nd Sravana, and Rs. 200/- on 25th Sravana. In effect the defendant has admitted the receipt of Rs. 6000.00 Rs. 3000.00 before, and Rs. 3000/- after, the execution of the hand-notes. The defendant takes the plea of payment of Rs. 2250/- on different dates during 1370 B. S., and of Rs. 2060/- on different dates during 1371 B. S. According to him there was a balance of Rs. 1695/- only to be paid to the plaintiff, after he had paid Rs. 4310/- in all. 3000/- after, the execution of the hand-notes. The defendant takes the plea of payment of Rs. 2250/- on different dates during 1370 B. S., and of Rs. 2060/- on different dates during 1371 B. S. According to him there was a balance of Rs. 1695/- only to be paid to the plaintiff, after he had paid Rs. 4310/- in all. He further pleads that after payment of Rs. 4310/-, he demanded back the two hand notes from the plaintiff in the later part of 1371 B. S., but the plaintiff refused to return the hand-notes and promised to return all the three hand-notes after the entire amount was paid. The defendant has stated " ...... as the defendant was aggrieved the plaintiff entered the payment in his A/C book". As the plaintiff did not return him the hand-notes he has stopped further repayment. The defendant has denied the oral loan of Rs. 1000/- alleged to have been taken on 17-5-64. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge has framed a number of issues of which we are concerned with issues Nos. 5 and 6. They are: "5. Is the plea of payment by defendant true? 6. Is the story of giving an oral loan of Rs. 1000/- by plaintiff to defendant true?" After trial he has rejected the pleas of the defendant and found the plaintiffs case proved and decreed the suit for Rs. 8,500/-, as claimed. 5. Let us first examine the plaintiffs claim of Rs. 6000/- based on the three hand-notes. Before that let us consider the law on the point. 6. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides a special rule of evidence in case of a promissory note. It, inter alia, provides: "118. Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: (a) that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration,...............". In a suit on hand-note, if the execution thereof is admitted or proved, under Section 118 (a) of the Act, there shall be a presumption that the hand-note is for consideration, and the burden is on the defendant to prove the absence of consideration. In the instant case the defendant has admitted the execution of the three hand-notes proved as Exts. 1, 2 and 3. The defendant has also admitted the receipt of the considerations therefor, namely, the entire sum of Rupees 6,000/-, covered by the three hand-notes. In the instant case the defendant has admitted the execution of the three hand-notes proved as Exts. 1, 2 and 3. The defendant has also admitted the receipt of the considerations therefor, namely, the entire sum of Rupees 6,000/-, covered by the three hand-notes. He has pleaded that no money was received by him from the plaintiff when he executed the hand-notes. It is not necessary that the consideration of a hand-note must be paid by the lender to the borrower at the time of the execution of the hand-note. What the law requires is that the hand-note was executed "for consideration". It is sufficient if the consideration is admitted or proved to have been paid either at the time of, or before, or after, the execution of the hand-note. In the instant case when the defendant has admitted the receipt of the considerations of Exts. 1, 2 and 3, the burden, under the law, is on the defendant to prove the repayment. Further, when he has taken the plea of payment, the burden is all the more on him to prove it. 7. To prove the repayment of the loan of Rs. 6,000/-, the defendant has proved Exts. B (7) to B (11) and D (1) to D (3), which are entries in his what are called books of accounts. D.W. 5, Ramesh Chandra Biswas, has proved the accounts. His evidence is that he used to write the accounts of the defendant and also of some other persons on the basis of payment of remuneration. He was writing the accounts of the defendant since Magh, 1369 B. S. He has proved Ext. A (1) being the defendants account in the name of the plaintiff. He used to write the accounts of the defendant twice a week from notes kept by the "defendants people". According to him the entries were first entered in Jamakharas khatas and then posted from Jamakharas khatas to the Khatain. Ext. B is the Jamakharas khata for the year 1370 B. S. and Ext. A is the Khatian. He has proved Ext. B (7) showing payment of Rs. 100/- on 4-8-63; Ext. B (8) showing payment of Rs. 900/- on 26-9-63; Ext. P (9) showing payment of Rs. 450/- on 2-2-64; Ext. B (10) showing payment of Rs. 300/- on 25-2-64; and Ext. B (11) showing payment of Rs. 500/- on 8-3-64. A is the Khatian. He has proved Ext. B (7) showing payment of Rs. 100/- on 4-8-63; Ext. B (8) showing payment of Rs. 900/- on 26-9-63; Ext. P (9) showing payment of Rs. 450/- on 2-2-64; Ext. B (10) showing payment of Rs. 300/- on 25-2-64; and Ext. B (11) showing payment of Rs. 500/- on 8-3-64. He has also proved Ext. D (1) showing payment of Rs. 500/- on 17-7-64; Ext. D (2) showing payment of Rs. 560/- on 30-8-64; and Ext. D (3) showing payment of Rs. 1000/- on 22-9-64. The total amount shown to have been paid under the above entries is Rs. 4310.00. The original books of accounts, namely, Exts. A, B, C and D, are not in Court. The parties also did not insist that they should be called for and examined by the Court. 8. The statement made by a person in his own favour, whether oral or documentary, is normally not admissible in evidence. But under Section 34 of the Evidence Act entries of books of account regularly kept in due course of business are admissible. The books of account to be admissible under Section 34 must be proved to have been regularly kept in course of business. In the instant case D.W. 1, who is the defendant, or D.W. 5 who has deposed that he wrote the account books of the defendant, have not deposed that these accounts were regularly kept in course of business. In the absence of Exts. A, B, C and D, this Court is also not in a position to see whether they appear to have been regularly kept in course of business. The defendant has stated in his written statement that as after repayment of Rs. 4310/- to the plaintiff, on his (defendants) demand for the return of the two hand-notes, the plaintiff declined to do so on the plea of returning all the three hand-notes after the entire money was paid he entered the payments in his accounts. He has stated: "As at this, the defendant was very much displeased (with) the plaintiff for the satisfaction of the defendant, the defendants repaid money was kept as realised as per his account. The truth of the statement of the defendant will be proved as soon as the plaintiffs account is submitted before the Court". He has stated: "As at this, the defendant was very much displeased (with) the plaintiff for the satisfaction of the defendant, the defendants repaid money was kept as realised as per his account. The truth of the statement of the defendant will be proved as soon as the plaintiffs account is submitted before the Court". On his own statement, therefore, the defendant maintained the accounts after the alleged repayments of the sum of Rs. 4310/-, that is to say, after 22-9-64. This shows that he prepared his books of account containing, inter alia, Exts. B (7) to B (11) and Exts. D (1) to D (3) after 22-9-64. These books of accounts, therefore, are not regularly kept in course of business and, as such, not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. 9. That apart, Exts. 5, 4, 6 and 7 render the accounts suspicious and show that the accounts including the exhibited entries were prepared to create evidence in support of the defence. Ext. 5 is the office copy of a notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Shri J.P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that Ext. 5 is not admissible. Ext. 5 was admitted without objection. The plaintiff in his evidence has stated that prior to Ext. 4, which was the office copy of a notice issued by his lawyer, he had issued the notice demanding repayment of the money and Ext. 5 was the copy of that notice. Ext. 5 (1) is the postal receipt of the letter sent by registered post; Ext. 5 (2) is the postal acknowledgment showing receipt of Ext. 5 by the defendant. The plaintiff does not known English Exts. 5 (1) and 5 (2) are in English. They are public documents being issued by public authorities and come from proper custody. Ext. 5 (2), the acknowledgment receipt, purports to contain the signature of the defendant as receiving the letter. Although the defendant has denied receipt of Ext. 5 (the contents of Ext. 5 was read out to him and he has stated that he received no such letter), he did not deny his purported signature on Ext. 5 (2). Ext. 5 (1) shows that the plaintiff demanded of him Rs. 6,000/- of the hand-notes together with the oral loan of Rs. 1,000/-. Another submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee is that Ext. 5 was read out to him and he has stated that he received no such letter), he did not deny his purported signature on Ext. 5 (2). Ext. 5 (1) shows that the plaintiff demanded of him Rs. 6,000/- of the hand-notes together with the oral loan of Rs. 1,000/-. Another submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee is that Ext. 5 has not been proved in accordance with law, as admittedly it being not in the hand of the plaintiff, but in the hand of his employee, Kamapada, who was not examined. The plaintiff, although illiterate in English, is literate in Bengali language and he can read Ext. 5, which is in Bengali. As such, examination of Kamapada is not essential. In my opinion Ext. 5 is admissible and duly proved. Ext. 5 was dated 16-12-64. Ext. 4 dated 16-1-65 is a notice issued to the defendant by the plaintiff through his advocate. This was admitted under objection. The objection was that the original of Ext. 4 was not called for. Under Section 66 (1) of the Evidence Act when a document to be proved is itself a notice, original need not be called for and secondary evidence can be given. As such, Ext. 4 is not inadmissible. By Ext. 4 also the plaintiff demanded the amount of Rs. 6,000/- of the hand-notes together with the stipulated interest and also the amount of the oral loan of Rs. 1,000/-. It was stated in Ext. 4 that the defendant requested time for payment of the loan, but as the plaintiff urgently needed the amount, he (defendant) was requested to make the payment within one week from the date of the receipt of the notice, else, it was threatened, that the plaintiff would take recourse to Court of law, and in that case the defendant would be liable for cost and compensation. Ext. 6 dated 4-2-65 is a post-card written to the plaintiff by the defendant. Although this letter does not specifically mention about any hand-notes or the amount of the loan covered by the hand-notes or the oral loan of Rs. 1,000/-, the defendant has stated in it that he would pay the amount within the months of "Phalguna and Chaitra". He has further stated "it would be a matter of shame if you are to realise my dues with the help of Court". Ext. 1,000/-, the defendant has stated in it that he would pay the amount within the months of "Phalguna and Chaitra". He has further stated "it would be a matter of shame if you are to realise my dues with the help of Court". Ext. 7 is another letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff Ext. 7 is dated 25-1-65. In that letter he has, inter alia, written - "......... before about 1/2 months, I wrote a letter to you. I could not keep my words given in that. The condition of any work and business here is not good ....... Whatever the case may be, I shall, in any way, clear up your entire principal and interest to you within the month of Chaitra next. Rest assured in this respect. Please do not spend money for nothing. Even in case you spend money you will get your money in the month of Chaitra, and if you do not spend money then also you will get your money in the month of Chaitra. This is quite certain. This is my last letter. Now you please consider what you think fit. I have got money sufficient to clear up your principal and interest. If there be need even by closing my business I shall not hesitate to pay up your entire due .. ... .". On the back of the letter he further wrote: "Be kind enough to allow some time, because when such a period has been elasped. I shall pay up your dues in any way. This is a true fact." 10. As stated above the plaintiffs notices of demand were issued on 16-12-64 and 16-1-65, and the defendants letters are dated 25-1-65 and 4-2-65. By the above notices the plaintiff very unambiguously demanded the amounts of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 1,000/-. In none of the letters, Exts. 6 and 7 which, internal evidence shows, are replies to Exts. 5 and 4, the defendant pleaded payment of Rs. 4310/-, nor has he denied the alleged oral loan of Rs. 1,000/-. Although Exts. 6 and 7 by themselves alone may not be held to be sufficient admissions by the defendant of his liabilities to the plaintiff, they are strong circumstantial evidence negativing his plea taken in the written statement. Exts. 6 and 7 also show the defendants books of account were prepared for the purpose of the defence. 11. 1,000/-. Although Exts. 6 and 7 by themselves alone may not be held to be sufficient admissions by the defendant of his liabilities to the plaintiff, they are strong circumstantial evidence negativing his plea taken in the written statement. Exts. 6 and 7 also show the defendants books of account were prepared for the purpose of the defence. 11. With regard to the amount of Rs. 1,000/- although Sarfai, who was alleged to have been present at the time of the payment of the loan, has not been examined, I do not have adequate reasons to disbelieve the evidence of the plaintiff, particularly when this amount has not been denied by the defendant in his letters. Exts. 6 and 7. 12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.