Judgment :- F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. 2. Plaintiff filed the Suit on a promissory note under Ex.A-1, dated 29.7.1982, execution of which is not in dispute, for a sum of Rs.25,000/-executed by the defendant, agreeing to repay the principal with in terest @ 18% per annum. According to the appellant plaintiff, in spite of repeated demands and the lawyer's notice dated 27.5.1985 demanding the amount due under the promissory note and since the defendant was not inclined to make the payment, but he came forward with reply notice dated 4.7.1985 by stating certain untenable grounds, the Suit came to be laid. The circumstances pleaded on behalf of the respondent/defendant for the execution of the promissory note other than the reason mentioned in Ex.A-1, were denied by the plaintiff. 3. The Suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant by contending that Ex.A-1 had no valid consideration, that the respondent's wife purchased a property belonging to a lunatic, by name S.R.Venkataraman, the sale deed was executed on behalf of the said lunatic by the wife of the plaintiff, that necessary permission was obtained for getting the sale deed executed from the District Court, Madurai, that the same was executed on 12.5.1982, that since there was some opposition by the other sharers of the property, there was an Appeal in the High Court as against the permission granted by the District Court and for the purpose of meeting the expenses to be incurred in the Appeal proceedings in the High Court, the suit promissory note came to be executed by the respondent/defendant. It was also claimed that a sum of Rs.12,200/- was paid through the appellant's Advocate as part payment for the litigation expenses and that on different occasions, the respondent himself had expended a sum of Rs.15,000/- for the appellant. It was therefore contended that though the appellant initially agreed to return the promissory note, ultimately, he did not return the same, but laid the Suit. Therefore, the respondent contended that the Suit was not maintainable. 4. On behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked, while Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on the side of the respondent/ defendant. The appellant/plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, while apart from the respondent/defendant examining himself as D.W.1, he examined the Advocate of the appellant/plaintiff as D.W.2. 5. Therefore, the respondent contended that the Suit was not maintainable. 4. On behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked, while Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on the side of the respondent/ defendant. The appellant/plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, while apart from the respondent/defendant examining himself as D.W.1, he examined the Advocate of the appellant/plaintiff as D.W.2. 5. On a consideration of the evidence placed before the Trial Court, the Suit came to be decreed as prayed for. 6. The respondent/defendant preferred First Appeal before this Court and the learned Single Judge took the view that from and out of the sale consideration of the purchase made by the respondent's wife in a sum of Rs.3 lad's, some amount was withheld by the respondent and the promissory note appeared to have been executed to ensure proper repayment of the said sum to meet the litigation expense in the High Court in connection with the said sale. The learned Single Judge therefore concluded that the consideration mentioned in Ex.A-1 pro-note cannot be believed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was liable to be set aside and accordingly, the First Appeal was allowed. 7. Assailing the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that in Ex.A-1 pro-note itself, the consideration has been duly mentioned, namely for the development of the business of the respondent/defendant, that when the execution of the sale deed was not in dispute and when according to the respondent/defendant, Ex.A-1 pro-note had no consideration, the burden was upon the respondent to establish the same. Learned counsel further contended that the plea put-forth by the respondent/defendant that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was deducted from and out of the total sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs in relation to the purchase of the property of the lunatic, was a false statement, inasmuch as admittedly, the entire sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs was deposited by the respondent/defendant in the Court when permission was granted by the Trial Court. Learned counsel also contended that the alleged payment made under Ex.B.1 through D.W.2 had nothing to do with the suit pro-note. 8. Learned counsel also contended that the alleged payment made under Ex.B.1 through D.W.2 had nothing to do with the suit pro-note. 8. As against the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant contended that under Ex.B-2, which is a letter written by the appellant/plaintiff to D.W.2, the appellant himself has categorically admitted that the respondent should meet the litigation expenses, that Ex.B-1 clearly established the payment of Rs.11,000/- through D.W.2 and that D.W.1 (defendant) having deposed before the Court about the other payments to an extent of more than Rs.15,000/- duly made out, as accepted by the learned Single Judge, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was liable to be set aside and therefore, the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge in the First Appeal should not be interfered with. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following issues arise for consideration in this Appeal: (i) Whether the suit pro-note under Ex.A-1 had a valid consideration? (ii) Whether the plea put-forth by the defendant as regards the circumstances of the execution of Ex.A-1 pro-note were true? and (iii) To what relief the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to? 10. At the outset, it will have to be stated that execution of Ex.A-1 pro-note was never disputed by the respondent/defendant. Therefore, when the execution of Ex.A-1 with its contents not having been disputed and the said document states that the respondent/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the purpose of improvement of his business and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum, the burden shifted upon the respondent/defendant to show that the execution of the pro-note was for different purpose other than the reason which has been mentioned in it. 11. Though the defendant came forward with a plea in the written statement that the pro-note came to be executed to meet the litigation expenses of the High Court in connection with the purchase of a lunatic's property by his wife through the appellant's wife, before the Court below, the respondent/defendant came forward with a story that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was retained by him and the pro-note was executed only for that purpose. Further, while in the written statement, the respondent/defendant claimed that a sum of Rs.12,200/- was paid by him to the appellant/plaintiff through.D.W.2 (Advocate), in the oral evidence, he would state that a sum of Rs.13,000/- was paid under Ex.B-1 to the appellant/plaintiff through D.W.2. 12. That apart, according to the respondent/defendant, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid by him to the appellant/plaintiff, for which no material evidence was placed before the Court below. 13. In fact, in the oral evidence, D.W.1/defendant went to the extent of stating that he had paid Rs.28,000/- and that after the Appeal proceedings ended in his favour, he asked for return of the pro-note, which was not done by the appellant/plaintiff. Ultimately, the respondent stated that towards Ex.A-1 pro-note, he has paid Rs.28,000/- and that therefore, nothing was payable. In the course of cross-examination, the respondent/defendant also admitted that the entire sum of Rs.3 lakhs, namely the sale consideration was fully paid in the first instance. 14. D.W.2 (Advocate) also stated in his evidence that he received a sum of Rs.11,000/- from the respondent/defendant on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. He also stated that the appellant/plaintiff had necessary wherewithal to contest the case and that the respondent/defendant did not pay the money for the purpose of conducting the litigation. 15. The appellant/plaintiff in his evidence stated that he received a sum of Rs.11,000/- paid by the respondent/defendant through D.W.2. In Ex.B-2 letter written by the appellant/plaintiff to D.W.2, the appellant has clearly mentioned about the payment of Rs.3 lakhs made by the respondent/ defendant, which was lying in Court deposit. 16. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, it has come out that towards the prior sale as between the appellant's wife for and on behalf of the lunatic Venkataraman and the respondent's wife, the entire sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs was fully deposited in Court after necessary permission was granted by the Trial Court. When once the said fact is without any controversy, the claim of the respondent/defendant that he retained a sum of Rs.25,000/- from and out of the total sale consideration and that the pro-note was executed for the said sum, automatically falls to the ground. 17. When once the said fact is without any controversy, the claim of the respondent/defendant that he retained a sum of Rs.25,000/- from and out of the total sale consideration and that the pro-note was executed for the said sum, automatically falls to the ground. 17. It is to also be noted that though the respondent claimed that apart from payment made under Ex.B-1, he had also paid various sums on different occasions to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, there was nothing on record to support the said claim. 18. That apart, while under Ex.B-1, the payment recorded is only Rs.11,000/- and the receipt of which is also not disputed by the appellant/plaintiff, it was for the respondent/defendant to show as to how any different sum more than Rs.11,000/- was paid by him to the appellant/plaintiff. As pointed out earlier, in the oral evidence, the respondent/defendant claimed to have paid Rs.13,000/-, while in the written statement, he claimed to have paid Rs,12,200/-. 19. In the light of such prevaricating statement made on behalf of the respondent/defendant and in the light of the fact that Ex.B-1 document supported by the version of D.W.2 Advocate and P.W.1/plaintiff to the effect that the only sum paid by the respondent/defendant was Rs.11,000/-, we hold that subsequent to execution of Ex.A-1 pro-note, the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the appellant/plaintiff under Ex.B-1 dated 23.9.1982. 20. Having regard to such variations in the stand of the respondent as regards the subsequent payment made through D.W.2, and also the falsity in his stand that he retained a sum of Rs.25,000/- from and out of the total sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs, we can only hold that the plea put forward by the respondent/defendant cannot be believed. 21. Further, the evidence of D.W.2, who is none other than the Advocate of the appellant/plaintiff and who has stated in his evidence in the course of his cross-examination which is binding on the appellant that the appellant had the necessary wherewithal to meet the litigation expenses and the respondent did not pay any amount to meet the said expenses, has to be believed. 22. 22. If that be so, as a necessary corollary, we can only conclude that Ex.A-1 pro-note was executed for the purpose mentioned in the said document, namely for the improvement of the respondent's business and that in discharge of the said liability, the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.11,000/- under Ex.B-1 to the appellant/plaintiff through D.W.2-Advocate. 23. We are therefore unable to sustain the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in having accepted the stand of the respondent that Ex.A-1 pro-note was not executed for valid consideration. 24. Having regard to our above conclusions, it will have to be held that while execution of Ex.A-1 pro-note was for a valid consideration and the consideration being for the improvement of the respondent's business, the respondent had repaid a sum of Rs.11,000/- under Ex.B-1 on 23.9.1992 and that he was liable to pay the balance sum of Rs. 14,000/- with interest as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff in the plaint from 29.7.1982 to 22.7.1985, with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on the sum of Rs.14,000/- till the date of realisation. Accordingly, we answer the issue Nos. (i) to (iii) as above. 25. We set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge and modify the judgment and decree of the Trial Court to the extent indicated, namely that instead of a decree for the entire suit claim, it is restricted to a sum of Rs.14,000/- with interest as indicated above. 26. The Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.