( 1 ) RESPONDENT filed the suit O. S. No. 215 of 1979 against the appellant for recovery of the principal and interest due under the promissory note dated 10-12-1976 executed by the appellant in his favour. The case of the appellant is that the suit promissory note is a forged document. The trial Court decreed the suit. Hence the appeal by the defendant. During the pendency of the appeal, both the appellant and respondent died. So their legal representatives were brought on record as 2nd appellant and 2nd respondent respectively. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties would be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. ( 2 ) THE specific case of the defendant in his written statement is that he, plaintiff and two others entered into a partnership in the name and style of suseela Films with effect from 14-9-1976 for exploiting a motion picture kurukshetram . The said firm incurred a loss of Rs. 3,00,000/ -. At the time of settlement of accounts an amount of Rs. 62,844. 02 ps was found to be due from the respondent to him. Since he has been demanding payment of the said amount, plaintiff brought into existence the suit promissory note and another promissory note and filed this suit and another suit against him. ( 3 ) THE point for consideration is whether the suit promissory note (Ex. A1) is true and valid? ( 4 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that since the specific case of defendant is that plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount covered by Ex. A1 promissory note and another promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and since it is the evidence of the plaintiff as P. W. 1 that he lent the amount covered by Ex. A1 to the defendant after borrowing money from others by examining his creditors, and failed to establish his borrowing amounts from others by examining his creditors, it cannot but be said that plaintiff had no capacity to lend the amount covered by Ex. A1 promissory note. His next contention is that the Court below was in error in placing reliance Exs. A1 promissory note. His next contention is that the Court below was in error in placing reliance Exs. X1 to X11 which came into existence long after the institution of the suit, and as those returns were brought into existence by the plaintiff only with a view to serve as evidence to support his contention in suit, and contended that since the plaintiff failed to produce his account books, the Court below ought to have draw an inference against him. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that since the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 establishes the due execution of Ex. A1 by the defendant there are no grounds to interfere with the decree passed by the trial Court. ( 5 ) SINCE the main contention of the defendant is that the suit promissory note, Ex. A1, is not a genuine one and was brought into existence by the plaintiff, if due execution of Ex. A1 is proved by the plaintiff, the question as to whether the plaintiff has capacity to lend the amount or not pales into insignificance, because the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) that a promissory note is supported by consideration comes into operation. Since the said presumption is rebuttable, it is for the defendant to establish that Ex. A1 is not supported by consideration by establishing that plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount covered by Ex. A1. ( 6 ) EX. A1 is a printed form of promissory note with blanks filled in hand writing in ink. Against the printed words dastoori (scribe) swahastam (own hand) is written. It means that the executant of Ex. A1 himself had filled in the blanks in the printed form of promissory note. If a suit is filed on the basis of a forged promissory note the first thing a defendant would do is seek inspection of the suit promissory note to know who its scribe and attestors are, to enable him to enquire into their antecedents and their relationship with the plaintiff, and would usually refer to the dealings between the attestors and scribe with the plaintiff in the written statement. Rules 63 and 64 of Civil Rules of Practice (old) corresponding to Rule 117 of the Civil Rules of Practice (New) confer a right on a party and his advocate to seek inspection of the documents recited and referred and filed along with the pleadings into Court without payment of any fees. So defendant had a right to seek inspection of and could have filed his written statement after inspecting Ex. A1 and would have taken a plea that the handwriting in the body of Ex. A1 is not his. But, for the reasons best known to him, defendant did not take such a plea in his written statement. ( 7 ) P. WS. 2 and 3 are the attestors to Ex. A1. It is their evidence that the defendant borrowed money covered by Ex. A1 and executed Ex. A1 in favour of the plaintiff. Nothing useful was elicited during their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence. Their evidence positively establishes the due execution of Ex. A1 and passing of consideration thereunder. P. W. 4 and DW. 2 are the experts who gave Ex. A4 and Ex. B9 opinions respectively about the signature in Ex. A1. As per the evidence of P. W. 4 read with Ex. A4, Ex. A1 contains the signature of the appellant. As per the evidence of DW. 2 read with Ex. B9 the signature in Ex. A1 is not that of the appellant. Since the evidence of the expert is only opinion evidence, the trial Court did not take into consideration the evidence of P. W. 4 and DW. 2. For the same reason, I also do not wish to take into consideration the evidence of P. W. 4 and DW. 2. ( 8 ) A person bringing into existence a forged document would take the minimum possible risk, and would not take the risk of forging the entire document, to make it appear that it was executed by the person who allegedly executed it. In most of the cases that come up before Courts only the signature, but not the entire document, would be forged. In most of the cases that come up before Courts only the signature, but not the entire document, would be forged. Section 73 of Evidence Act empowers the Court to compare the disputed handwriting or signature with an admitted or proved handwriting or signature to ascertain whether the disputed handwriting or signature is of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, notwithstanding the fact that the handwriting was examined by an expert (see SALIGRAM vs. STATE-1972 (2) S. L. J. 335 and K. S. SATYANARAYANA vs. V. R. NARAYANA RAO - AIR 1999 S. C. 2544 ). Therefore I compared the signatures of the defendant in his Vakalat in the trial Court and this Court with the signature and handwriting in Ex. A1. A careful examination of the handwritings in Ex. A1 shows that the person who scribed it has a peculiar characterstic and method of writing in , in and in . A careful examination of the signature of the executant in Ex. A1 and the signature of the defendant in the Vakalat in the trial Court and this Court clearly shows that they were all made by only one hand and one person. A look at the signature of the appellant in his deposition as DW. 1 shows that he tried to disguise his signature while affixing his signature to some of the pages of his deposition, but could not get over the peculiar habit of writing the letters and in his signatures. The letters in in the vakalats and deposition of DW. 1 are very similar to the letters in the signature in Ex. A1. The handwritten letters in the body of Ex. A1 are also very similar to the letters found in the signatures in the Vakalats of the defendant in this Court and trial Court. ( 9 ) WHEN promissory notes are written in Telugu, if the promissor himself, in his own hand scribes, the promissory note, he would end the promissory note with the sentence . If the scribe of the promissory note is different from the promissor, the last sentence would be . The last sentence in Ex. A1 reads as under: " ". The letter and was first written and later scored off and the letter is written. From that also it is clear that the defendant himself filled in the blank portions in Ex. The last sentence in Ex. A1 reads as under: " ". The letter and was first written and later scored off and the letter is written. From that also it is clear that the defendant himself filled in the blank portions in Ex. A1 printed form in his own hand. Therefore it is clear that Ex. A1 was written and signed by the defendant. So his contention that Ex. A1 is a forged document cannot be believed or accepted. Since execution of Ex. A1 by the defendant is established, presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act comes into operation, and so the burden is on the defendant to establish that Ex. A1 is not supported by consideration and that plaintiff had no capacity to lend the amount covered by Exa1. ( 10 ) DEFENDANT who also is an income tax assessee did not produce his account books or the income tax assessment orders to establish that his accounts and income tax returns do not show the borrowing under Exa1 dated 10-12-1976. Since the suit was filed in 1979, defendant must have filed his income tax returns for the accounting years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. If really there was a raid by Income Tax authorities on the house and business premises of the defendant, and if all his account books and income tax assessment orders were seized by the income tax authorities as contended by him, nothing prevented the defendant from obtaining certified copies of the income tax returns, and the assessment orders for the above period to show to Court that his income tax returns do not disclose the borrowing under Ex. A1. Plaintiff not producing his account books lost its significance because he produced Ex. X1 his income tax returns and extracts from his accounts filed before the income tax authorities. The fact that plaintiff filed his returns belatedly can have significance if the accounts and income tax returns of the defendant do not disclose the borrowing under Exa1. So it is for the defendant to establish that his accounts and income tax returns do not show the borrowing under Ex. A1. Since plaintiff produced Exs. X1 to X11 the defendant s failure to produce his accounts and income tax returns entails an adverse inference being drawn against him. ( 11 ) EXCEPT the interested evidence of the defendant as DW. A1. Since plaintiff produced Exs. X1 to X11 the defendant s failure to produce his accounts and income tax returns entails an adverse inference being drawn against him. ( 11 ) EXCEPT the interested evidence of the defendant as DW. 1 there is no other evidence on record to show that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. Since the income tax returns filed by the plaintiff disclose that he lent money under Ex. A1 to the defendant, and the extracts of his accounts show that he was having that much money with him, solely basing on the interested oral evidence of the defendant as DW. 1, when he did not even produce his account books and income tax returns to corroborate his contention, it cannot be said that plaintiff had no capacity to lend the amount covered by Ex. A1. Thus defendant is unable to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore I hold that Ex. A1 is true and valid and is supported by consideration. The point is answered accordingly. ( 12 ) IN view of my finding on the point for consideration, I find no merits in the appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed with costs.