JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Chittorgarh dated February 2, 1989 by which he decreed the suit against the defendant-appellant for the recovery of Rs. 13,153/-. The facts of the case in that suit may be summarised thus :On July 4, 1983, the plaintiff-respondent filed suit for the recovery of Rs. 13,153/- against the defendant-appellant with the allegation in short that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,500/- on June 20,1980 with the stipulation to pay interest @ Rs. 1.50 per month and executed a pronote and receipt in his favour, he has not paid a single pie despite several demands and registered notice. The defendant-appellant filed the written statement traversing all the allegations of the plaint. He has further averred in his written statement that he is an agriculturist, his only source of income is agriculture, the plaintiff is a money lender, he has not obtained a license to deal in the money lending and as such the suit deserves to be dismissed with costs. The trial Court framed four issues. The plaintiff examined himself, Prakash Chandra, P.W. 2 who is son of attesting witness Nathulal, Scribe Devilal, P.W.4, Dhuli Ram, P.W. 3, Mangilal, P.W. 5, Mohanlal, P.W. 6 and Banshilal, P.W. 7 and produced the original pronote Ex. 1, Receipt Ex. 2 copy of notice for demand Ex. 3 and acknowledgement due Ex. 4. The defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and Alladin, D.W. 2 and produced 9 documents to prove that he is an agriculturist. After hearing the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit as such.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant that it is not proved that the pronote Ex. 1 and receipt Ex. 2 were executed for cash consideration. Plaintiff's witness Scribe Devilal P.W. 4 has stated on oath that no consideration passed before him when he scribed pronote Ex. 1 and receipt Ex. 2. It has further been conceded that after holding that the defendant-appellant was not a marginal farmer, it was not necessary for the trial Court to record that the defendant-appellant was not an agriculturist.4. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent duly supported the judgment under appeal. He also contended that it is well proved from the evidence on record that the pronote Ex. 1 and receipt Ex. 2 were executed for cash consideration. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent duly supported the judgment under appeal. He also contended that it is well proved from the evidence on record that the pronote Ex. 1 and receipt Ex. 2 were executed for cash consideration. It was also submitted that the execution of the pronote Ex. 1 is well proved and the burden lay upon the defendant-appellant to prove that no consideration passed as stated therein. He further contended that the suit loan was advanced on June 20, 1980, the Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors (Liquidation of Indebtedness) Act, 1976 came into force in the year 1976 and it is applicable only on those loans which were advanced before coming into force of this Act.5. Ghanshyam Lal, P.2. 1 has stated on oath that the defendant borrowed Rs. 8,500/- in cash from him with a stipulation to pay interest @ Rs. 1.50% per month and executed pronote Ex. 1 and receipt Ex. 2. The Scribe Devilal, P.W. 4 has stated on oath that the defendant Sewaram put his signatures on the pronote Ex. 1 and receipt Ex. 2 in his presence. He has further deposed that the attesting witnesses Nathulal and Ghisalal also put their signatures on the pronote Ex. 1 and receipt Ex. 2 in his presence. Prakash Chandra, P.W. 2 is the son of late Nathulal. He has deposed that the receipt Ex. 2 bears the signature of his father. Nangilal, P.W. 5 has stated that receipt Ex. 2 bears the signatures of his brother Nathulal. On the contrary the defendant Sewaam D.W. 1 has deposed that the pronote Ex. 1 and receipt Ex. 2 do not bear his signatures.6. The execution of the pronote Ex. 1 is well proved from the plaintiff's evidence. There is no reason to disbelieve the plaintiff and his witnesses. The plaintiff served a notice of demand Ex. 3 upon the defendant to make payment of the said loan with interest. The defendant admits in para No. 4 of his written statement that he duly received this notice. He also admits that no reply of this notice was given by him. It is thus well proved from the plaintiff's evidence that the pronote Ex. 1 was executed for consideration by the defendant. When the execution of the pronote Ex. The defendant admits in para No. 4 of his written statement that he duly received this notice. He also admits that no reply of this notice was given by him. It is thus well proved from the plaintiff's evidence that the pronote Ex. 1 was executed for consideration by the defendant. When the execution of the pronote Ex. 1 is proved, the burden lay upon the defendant-appellant to prove that this consideration was not received by him as provided in Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.7. It is well proved that the suit loan was advanced to the defendant by the plaintiff on June 20, 1980. The Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors (Liquidation of Indebtedness) Act, 1976 came into force with effect from April 5, 1976. It is clear from the definition of 'debt' given in Section 2(e) of the Act that this Act is applicable to the debts subsisting on the date of the commencement of the Act. As such this Act was not applicable to the suit loan. There was no question of framing issue No. 2.8. No other point has been present in the appeal.9. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******