JUDGMENT 1. This Second appeal is focused by the defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Principal Subordiante Judge, Villupuram, in confirming and enlarging the scope of the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2007 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Villupuram, in O.S.No.446 of 2005, which was one for recovery of money, by allowing the cross-appeal filed by the plaintiff. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: (i) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit as against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.85,150/- based on the original cause of action concerning the pro-note-Ex.A1, by contending that on 4.5.2003 during morning hours, a sum of Rs.65,000/-(rupees sixty five thousand) was borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note(Ex.A1) during the afternoon of the same date. (ii) According to the plaintiff, since the word 'on demand' is not found spelt out in the promissory note, he was constrained to fall back on the original cause of action, which arose on the morning of 4.5.2003. Accordingly the plaintiff would pray for decreeing the suit. 4. Per contra, the defendant in a bid to slap down and pulverise the averments in the plaint, would put forth and set forth his averments in the written statement, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: (i) There was no lending and borrowal as alleged in the plaint. (ii) An agreement to sell between the plaintiff and his two brothers being the land owners on the one side and the defendant-the prospective purchaser on the other side emerged on 14.7.2002 relating to an immovable property situated in Villupuram; the total sale consideration agreed was Rs.1,45,000/-(Rupees one lakh forty five thousand), of which, a sum of Rs.15,000/-(rupees fifteen thousand) was paid by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and his two brothers; thereafter, the sale deed dated 28.1.2004 emerged and at that time, the agreed remaining sale consideration was paid and the sale deed was executed. (iii) However, before the execution of the sale deed, because of the delay in the sale deed being executed by the plaintiff and his brothers in favour of the defendant, on 4.5.2003 the suit pro note-Ex.A1 emerged and in fact, under that there was no real lending and borrowing took place. (iv) At the time of the execution of the sale deed, the defendant demanded the plaintiff to return back the suit pro-note, but the latter assured that he would return it after some time. Hoping and believing that the plaintiff would keep up his promise, the defendant kept quiet. Accordingly, the defendant would pray for the dismissal of the suit. 5. Whereupon issues were framed. Up went the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on his side. 6. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit ordering the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.65,000/-(sixty five thousand) with 9% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and 6% interest per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. 7. Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant preferred the appeal, and the cross-appeal was filed by the plaintiff. Whereupon, the judgment was delivered by the first appellate Court accepting the cross-appeal of the plaintiff and dismissing the appeal of the defendant. Precisely the first appellate Court awarded pre-suit interest also in favour of the plaintiff. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, this second appeal has been filed on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law: "A) Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff by disregarding the material circumstances and evidence adduced on the side of the defendant particularly on the basis of the documentary evidence under Ex.B1 to B4? B) Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution and consideration of the promissory note under Ex.A1? B) Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution and consideration of the promissory note under Ex.A1? C) Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit by drawing wrong inferences from the proved set of facts under Ex.B1 to B4 and in between the same only the alleged suit promissory note has come into existence? D) Whether the courts below are right in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff when the suit itself is filed in a court which has no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint claim?" (extracted as such) 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would pyramid his arguments, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: (i) A mere running of the eye over the deposition of P.W.1-the plaintiff would leave no doubt in the mind of any Court that the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands. The plaintiff even went to the extent of pleading ignorance about the signature of the defendant in Ex.A1-the suit pro-note. The plaintiff would also contend that he was not aware of the details of the agreement to sell etc. (ii) The witness examined on the side of the plaintiff, who is alleged to be the witness to Ex.A1, would blindly try to support the case of P.W.1-the plaintiff. No man having head over shoulder would ever venture to lend money to the proposed purchaser of his land and that too, when an agreement to sell is in vogue between the lender of the amount and the loanee and a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-(rupees one lakh thirty five thousand) was yet to be paid towards the sale consideration agreed. (iii) As such, the preponderance of probabilities were not taken into account by both the Courts below. (iv) In the sale deed, pulling no punches, the recitals would reveal that the entire sale consideration of Rs.70,000/-(rupees seventy thousand) was paid by the purchaser (defendant) in favour of the plaintiff and his two brothers. These probabilities would probabilise the case of the defendant that absolutely there was no original cause of action for the suit and that there was no chance of the defendant also borrowing money from the plaintiff and as a corollary there was no probability of the plaintiff lending money to the defendant under Ex.A1. These probabilities would probabilise the case of the defendant that absolutely there was no original cause of action for the suit and that there was no chance of the defendant also borrowing money from the plaintiff and as a corollary there was no probability of the plaintiff lending money to the defendant under Ex.A1. (v) Ignoring all these salient features, both the Courts below decreed the suit. (vi) A plaintiff should succeed or fail based on his own pleadings and evidence. Here, pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff are totally against him. Ignoring all these facts, the suit was decreed, warranting interference in second appeal. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would advance his arguments, the warp and woof of the same would run thus: (i) Even though the plaintiff unwittingly filed the suit based on the original cause of action, despite the fact that the suit pro-note-Ex.A1 was a pro-note in stricto senso as per the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial Court treated it as a pro-note and decreed the suit correctly. (ii) Since the pre-suit interest was not awarded in favour of the plaintiff, the cross-appeal was filed by the plaintiff and the first appellate Court correctly awarded even that pre-suit interest in favour of the plaintiff, warranting no interference in second appeal. (iii) As against the concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below, the question of entertaining the second appeal is a well-neigh impossibility. (iv) Simply because there are certain clouds in the statement of P.W.1(the plaintiff), the defendant cannot try to make a mountain out of mole hill and attempt to probabilise the baseless defence. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would pray for the dismissal of the suit. 11. On hearing both sides, I decided to formulate the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Courts below were justified in placing reliance on the case of the plaintiff that there was actually lending by the plaintiff a sum of Rs.65,000/-(rupees sixty five thousand) in favour of the defendant, de hors the agreement to sell, which emerged between the plaintiff and his two brothers on the one side and the defendant on the other side? (2) Whether the defendant's plea that at the time of execution of the sale deed, he failed to get back the suit pro-note is a believable theory in the facts and circumstances of this case? (3) Whether the defendant was justified in not giving reply to the pre-suit notice issued by the plaintiff? (4) Whether the trial Court was justified in not granting the pre-suit interest in favour of the plaintiff, in the facts and circumstances of this case? (5) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below? 12. All these substantial questions of law are taken together for discussion as they are interwoven and interlinked, interconnected and entwined with one another. 13. In civil matters, trite the proposition of law is, that preponderance of probabilities would govern the adjudication. Indubitably and indisputably, incontrovertibly and unarguably, there emerged an agreement to sell between the plaintiff and his two brothers on the one side, being the land owners and the defendant on the other side as proposed purchaser. As per which, the plaintiff agreed to sell in favour of the defendant, an immovable property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,45,000/-(rupees one lakh and forty five thousand) and under agreement to sell, a sum of Rs.15,000/-(rupees fifteen thousand) was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and his two brothers and there remained, as on that date, a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-(rupees one lakh thirty thousand) to be payable by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff towards remaining part of the sale consideration. 14. While so, it is discernible or understandable that the plaintiff (one of the land owners) might not have lent a huge sum of Rs.65,000/-(rupees sixty five thousand) on 4.5.2003, before the emergence of the sale deed under the agreement to sell. 15. To the risk of repetition and pleonasm, but without being tautalogous, I would like to reiterate that preponderance of probabilities have to be seen necessarily in this factual matrix. 16. Naturally it is quite against human conduct that the proposed seller of a land would give a loan of a sum of Rs.65,000/-(rupees sixty five thousand), and that too, when the loanee was yet to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-(rupees one lakh thirty thousand) in favour of the plaintiff and his two brothers. 16. Naturally it is quite against human conduct that the proposed seller of a land would give a loan of a sum of Rs.65,000/-(rupees sixty five thousand), and that too, when the loanee was yet to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-(rupees one lakh thirty thousand) in favour of the plaintiff and his two brothers. As such, viewing this matter from that angle, what I could understand is that the defence as put forth by the defendant is more probable on that count. 17. No doubt, P.W.1 and his witness-P.W.2 blindly wanted to put forth the averments in the plaint, so to say, relating to the original cause of action. The maxim 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'-False in one thing, false in everything, is not applicable to the Indian settings and scenario. 18. The Court has to separate the grain from the chaff in appropriate cases and see the reality. The trial Court correctly held that Ex.A1-the pro-note was a valid promissory note even though the word 'on demand' was not there. In such a case, the presumption under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act would come into play. Applying the doctrine of 'lifting the wheel', if the reality is seen, it is blatantly clear that on 28.1.2004-the sale deed between the plaintiff and his two brothers on the one side and the defendant on the other side emerged, whereby the former sold the said immovable property contemplated in the earlier agreement to sell in favour of the latter for a total sale consideration of Rs.70,000/-(rupees seventy thousand); whereas, the agreement to sell would refer to a total sale consideration of Rs.1,45,000/-(rupees one lakh forty five thousand). Nobody on earth would sell such an immovable property for less than half the value of it referred to in the agreement to sell. As such, once the Court was called upon to see the reality, the bare reality has to be seen and undoubtedly both sides in this case tried to camouflage and conceal certain facts with the avowed object to canvass their respective case, ignoring, for the time being, the law. 19. This Court being the Court of law as well as equity, has to see the reality and render justice and it cannot throw the baby along with the bathe water. 19. This Court being the Court of law as well as equity, has to see the reality and render justice and it cannot throw the baby along with the bathe water. It is therefore crystal clear that even the sale consideration of Rs.70,000/-(seventy thousand) as found set out in the sale deed is an unbelievable one. 20. Similarly, the recitalsin the sale deed that the entire sale consideration was received by the plaintiff and his brothers from the defendant has to be taken with a pinch of salt. One fact is clear that the total sale consideration in the sale deed is an unbelievable one and in the meantime Ex.A1-the pro-note would refer to a sum of Rs.65,000/-(rupees sixty five thousand). 21. The defendant failed to get back that pro-note, for which the explanation given by the defendant is not convincing, as it amounts to putting a square peg in a circular hole. The defendant also has not taken steps to issue any notice after the sale deed, for the return of the pro-note. Over and above that for the pre-suit notice, reply notice was not given by the defendant. 22. However, the learned counsel for the defendant would try to canvass his point by pointing out that mere non-reply would not be fatal. 23. I fully agree with the learned counsel for the defendant that mere non reply would not be fatal to the case of the defendant in all cases, but such conduct along with the other circumstances might boomerang against the defendant. In this case, it is not that the defendant simply failed to give reply to the plaintiff's pre-suit notice, but over and above that earlier he committed, as per his own narration, allegedly, a grave mistake, in not getting back the suit promissory note at the time of emergence of the sale deed. As such, if both the circumstances are taken together that would go against the case of the defendant. As such, I am of the considered view that in reality the pro-note emerged only relating to the remaining part of the unpaid sale consideration payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. 24. This is a singularly singular case in which the plaintiff as well as the defendant contributed their own twisted facts and made a murky situation. As such, I am of the considered view that in reality the pro-note emerged only relating to the remaining part of the unpaid sale consideration payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. 24. This is a singularly singular case in which the plaintiff as well as the defendant contributed their own twisted facts and made a murky situation. As has been pointed out by me above, this Court has to see the reality and to the extent possible render justice in favour of both. 25. Not to put too fine a point on it, the trial Court's judgment in ordering payment of Rs.65,000/-(sixty five thousand) payable by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff is justified, despite the reasons cited therein may not be convincing. The trial Court, even though has not given any reason for negativing the claim of pre-litigation interest, yet I could see logic in such non-granting of the pre-litigation interest. 26. The sum of Rs.65,000/-(sixty five thousand) only represented the unpaid sale consideration, for which, automatically interest cannot be awarded and that too, when the plaintiff approached the Court with a different set of facts. The awarding of 9% interest per annum pendente lite on Rs.65,000/-(sixty five thousand) and 6% interest per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation is justified in view of Section 34 of C.P.C. and as such, the trial Court's ultimate decree has to be upheld and the first appellate Court's judgment has to be set aside. 27. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered as under: Substantial Question of Law No.(1) is answered to the effect that the Courts below were not justified in placing reliance on the case of the plaintiff that there was actually lending by the plaintiff a sum of Rs.65,000/-(rupees sixty five thousand) in favour of the defendant, de hors the agreement to sell, which emerged between the plaintiff and his two brothers on the one side and the defendant on the other side. Substantial Question of Law No.(2) is answered to the effect that the defendant's plea thatat the time of execution of the sale deed, he failed to get back the suit pro-note is an unbelievable theory in the facts and circumstances of this case. Substantial Question of Law No.(2) is answered to the effect that the defendant's plea thatat the time of execution of the sale deed, he failed to get back the suit pro-note is an unbelievable theory in the facts and circumstances of this case. Substantial Question of Law No.(3) is answered to the effect that the defendant was not justified in not giving reply to the pre-suit notice issued by the plaintiff. Substantial Question of Law No.(4) is answered to the effect that the trial Court was justified in not granting the pre-suit interest in favour of the plaintiff, in the facts and circumstances of this case. 28. On balance, the trial Court's judgment and decree are restored and the first appellate Court's judgment and decree are set aside. The second appeal is disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.