JUDGMENT Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. Defendants in a suit for money on a promissory note are the appellants. The execution of the promissory note is admitted. The promissory note is executed for an amount of Rs. 32,000. The case of the defendants is that even though the promissory note was executed for an amount of Rs. 32,000 actually an amount of Rs. 16,000 alone was paid by the plaintiff, and even from that an amount of Rs. 960 was deducted as advance interest and the balance amount is only Rs. 15,040. So, the only question that has to be considered in the case was as to the fact whether what is stated in the promissory note as consideration for the promissory note is correct or not. 2. The circumstance would certainly indicate that the burden is on the defendants to say that what they have admitted in the promissory note as consideration is incorrect. It has to be remembered that what is stated in the promissory note will amount to an admission. Of course, if there is good evidence to establish the fact that admission was under particular circumstances and that it is not a correct and true statement, certainly the court can interfere. But, it requires satisfactory and valid evidence. 3. A notice was issued asking for payment of money in the promissory note. It was immediately replied. No contention was taken that the amount shown in the promissory note is incorrect and that the defendants' liability is confined to. Rs.15,040 If what is now contended is correct, the normal human conduct is to express with emphatic surprise that what is contained in the notice on a very crucial point, viz. consideration shown in the promissory note is untrue and incorrect. But, what is seen is that there is no whisper about the contention In the notice, but the defendants only made a request for some time to pay the amount. 4. The Trial Court has considered these aspects very elaborately and came to the conclusion that the defence statement by the defendants is unsustainable and decreed the suit. In appeal, the learned Single Judge has reappraised and re-assessed the evidence, under the circumstances revealed in the case very, elaborately and adverted to all the arguments advanced by counsel for appellant and allowed the appeal. 5. In appeal, the learned Single Judge has reappraised and re-assessed the evidence, under the circumstances revealed in the case very, elaborately and adverted to all the arguments advanced by counsel for appellant and allowed the appeal. 5. Counsel for defendants appellants repeatedly submitted that the plaintiff has not discharged his burden in so far as he has not produced his accounts. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to produce the accounts. Counsel submitted that the suit was instituted immediately after the execution of the promissory note. That is not a circumstance, which will militate against the case of the plaintiff. Counsel for appellants relied on AIR 1961 SC 1316 ; Kundan Lal v. Custodian, Evacuee' Property] and AIR 1968 SC 1438 Bhupendra Singh v. State of Punjab]. We do not think that the circumstances and evidence in this case are similar to the circumstances and evidence considered by the Supreme Court in A.I.R 1961 SC 1316. 6. In AIR 1961 SC 1316 , the Supreme Court was considering the presumption under S.188 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the concept of burden of proof in relation to failure of consideration on the maker of the note or the endorser as the case may be and the Supreme Court explained that burden of proof has two meanings one the burden of proof as a matter of Law and pleading and the other the burden of establishing a case. The former is fixed as a question of law on the basis of the pleadings and is unchanged during the entire trial whereas the latter is not constant but shifts as soon as a party adduces sufficient evidence to raise a presumption in his favour. The Supreme Court also said that the evidence required to shift the burden need not necessarily be direct evidence, i.e. oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by opposite party. It may also include circumstances revealed in the case. Observing thus, the Supreme Court said that a plaintiff cannot always rely upon the presumption. The Supreme Court also said that the evidence required to shift the burden need not necessarily be direct evidence, i.e. oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by opposite party. It may also include circumstances revealed in the case. Observing thus, the Supreme Court said that a plaintiff cannot always rely upon the presumption. If other circumstances are brought out which would shift the burden of proof on the side of the plaintiff, in spite of the presumption under S.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and when such a shifting of burden is established and the plaintiff fails to discharge his burden of proof, certainly S.114 of the Evidence Act enables the court to draw a presumption against the plaintiff who withholds a document or account, which would have established his case, when the burden of proof has shifted on his side. 7. In the case at hand, it has to be remembered that the execution is admitted and the case of the defendants is that what is stated in the promissory note as consideration is not Rs. 32,000 but only Rs.16,000 out of which an amount of Rs. 960 has been paid. No circumstance has been brought out to establish this fact, so as to shake the presumption under S.118, but, it has been reinforced by the reply notice wherein the defendants did not plead such a case, when the plaintiff demanded the amounts specifying that the amount under" the promissory note is Rs.32,000. Further the defendants only asked for time in the reply notice. This circumstances in this case is a special feature, which, certainly makes the facts of the case totally dissimilar with the facts of the case reported in A.I.R. 1961 SC 1316. 8. Now, we may refer to the decision reported in AIR 1968 SC 1413 (Gopal Krishnaji v. Mohd. Haji Latif). The general proposition that has been laid down in this case is based on what Lord Shaw has observed in Murugesan Pillai v. Gnana Sambandh Pandara Sannadhi ( AIR 1917 PC 6 ) "A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those ia possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and failing, accordingly, to furnish to the Courts the best material for its decision. With regard to third parties, this may be right enough they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit, but with regard to the parties to the suit it is, in their Lordships' opinion, an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition." On the above said principle, the Supreme Court said that it is not a safe and correct procedure to say that if burden of proof does not lie on a party, that party has no obligation to place before the court or to withhold, the best evidence available, it is within his possession. The Supreme Court said that it is not a sound practice for those desiring 'to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof. 9. It has to be remembered that considering the circumstances involved in the case at hand the account books of the plaintiff has not got much relevance. It cannot be considered as the best evidence. Further, this principle is not applicable in case the defendant has admitted in a document (promissory note) that he has received Rs. 32,000 and then contending that that admission in the document is incorrect without any satisfactory evidence before the court, but as stated earlier, the plaintiff has produced the reply notice of the defendant, which would indicate a reinforcement of the admission made in the promissory note, 10. The Trial Court has considered all the aspects of the matter very elaborately' adverting to the correct principles involved in the case. The learned Single Judge has considered the matter thoroughly and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. We see no merit in the appeal and it is only to be dismissed. We do so.