Judgment : 1. This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the decree and judgment dated 30.4.2004 passed in A.S.No.44 of 2003 on the file of VI Additional District Judge (III Fast Track Court), Warangal at Mahabubabad, wherein the decree and judgment dated 14.11.2002 passed in O.S.No.19 of 1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Mahabubabad was reversed. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he and the defendants belong to Nellikudur Village in Warangal District. The first defendant, at the time of carrying on business at Nellikudur, approached the plaintiff on 15.03.1994 with a request to lend an amount of Rs.40,000/-for his business purposes. The plaintiff agreed to lend money if first defendant produces one surety. The second defendant who is wife of first defendant agreed to stand as surety. The plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the first defendant, who in turn executed promissory note dated 15.3.1994 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 2% per month. The second defendant also signed on the promissory note as surety. The first defendant incurred loss in the business and left the village in or around 1995 and has been staying at Hyderabad. The second defendant constructed a house bearing No.1-8-/19/1 in Kapra Municipality without the financial aid of first defendant. In spite of repeated requests, first defendant did not pay the amount covered under the promissory note. Hence the suit. 3. The first defendant filed written statement inter alia contending that the plaintiff is running chit business without licence and first defendant was one of the subscribers in three chits of prize amount of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.40,000/-. The first defendant issued three promissory notes as requested by the plaintiff. The first defendant left the village in the year 1994 as he incurred heavy loss in the business and staying at Hyderabad. The plaintiff met the first defendant and forced him to sell the house of second defendant bearing door No.1-98 situated at Nellikudur towards discharge of his entire debt including the amount of Rs.6,000/- borrowed under a separate promissory note. The first defendant was forced to file insolvency petition in a hasty manner before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The plaintiff met the first defendant and forced him to sell the house of second defendant bearing door No.1-98 situated at Nellikudur towards discharge of his entire debt including the amount of Rs.6,000/- borrowed under a separate promissory note. The first defendant was forced to file insolvency petition in a hasty manner before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. In order to satisfy the plaintiff, first defendant convinced second defendant to sell house bearing No.1098 which is her sthree dhana property, towards discharge of debts of first defendant. The plaintiff succeeded in his attempts to purchase the house at Rs.1,50,000/-. In order to avoid stamp duty, the plaintiff had undervalued the house in the sale deed. The plaintiff returned only three promissory notes, paid cash of Rs.2,500/- to second defendant and sent a message to first defendant. The registration of sale deed in favour of plaintiff is deemed to be the acknowledgement of receipt of money under the suit promissory note. The plaintiff has taken movables worth Rs.18,365/- laying in the house of second defendant. Hence the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs.18,365/-to the defendants. The plaintiff concocted the surety bond. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The second defendant filed memo adopting the written statement filed by the first defendant. 5. The trial court has framed necessary issues for trial and both the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. By judgment dated 14.11.2002, the trial court decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed appeal and the first appellate court allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred this second appeal. 6. The substantial questions of law urged before this court are as follows. 1. Whether an admission by a party needs any proof? 2. Whether the oral evidence has got any weight in the light of documents and of its admission? 3. Whether burden of proving execution of promissory note lies on the plaintiff, in a case where the defendant admits execution? 7. Heard Sri M.S.N. Prasad, learned counsel for appellant and Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondents. Point Nos.1 to 3: 8. In order to avoid recapitulation of facts and evidence, I am inclined to address all the points simultaneously. To substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1. P.W.2 is one of the attestors of Ex.A1. Point Nos.1 to 3: 8. In order to avoid recapitulation of facts and evidence, I am inclined to address all the points simultaneously. To substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1. P.W.2 is one of the attestors of Ex.A1. To demolish the case of plaintiff, first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4. D.W.2 is one of the attestors of Ex.A1 promissory note. 9. The learned counsel for the defendants has drawn my attention to the following decisions in Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi v Rajat Vidyarthi (2009) 3 SCC 287 ), Thiagaraj v Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil (2004) 5 SCC 762 ), Satya Gupta (Smt.) alias Madhu Gupta v Brijesh Kumar (1998) 6 SCC 423 ), Ram Prasad Rajak v Nan Kumar & Bros (1998) 6 SCC 748 ), Ninge Gowda v Linge Gowda (1997) 1 SCC 477 ) and Ram Das alias Ram Suraj v Gandibai (Smt.) (1997) 1 SCC 74 ). As per the principle enunciated in the above cited cases, High Court cannot interfere with the findings of the first appellate court unless there is a substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 100 CPC. 10. As per the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the first defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.3.1994 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note. In the written statement, first defendant has taken a plea that he executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. In the cross-examination D.W.1 admitted his signature on Ex.A1 promissory note. P.W.2 and D.W.2, the attestors of Ex.A1 promissory note, also admitted that Ex.A1 bears the signature of first defendant. As per the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the wife of first defendant stood as a guarantor and signed on Ex.A1. D.W.1 denied his wife's signature on Ex.A1. The second defendant is the competent person to speak whether she subscribed her signature on Ex.A1 or not. For the reasons best known, second defendant did not choose to enter into witness box to deny her signature on Ex.A1 promissory note. By examining P.Ws.1 and 2, plaintiff clearly established that first defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour. 11. The second defendant is the competent person to speak whether she subscribed her signature on Ex.A1 or not. For the reasons best known, second defendant did not choose to enter into witness box to deny her signature on Ex.A1 promissory note. By examining P.Ws.1 and 2, plaintiff clearly established that first defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour. 11. It is a settled principle of law that once the execution of promissory note is established by the plaintiff the onus shifts on the defendant to establish that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration or he discharged the suit amount. For better appreciation of the rival contentions, this court is placing reliance on para-32 of the decision in G.Vasu v Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri ( AIR 1987 AP 139 ). 32. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that where, in a suit on a promissory note, the case of the defendant as to the circumstances under which the promissory note was executed is not accepted, it is open to the defendant to prove that the case set up by the plaintiff on the basis of the recitals in the promissory note, or the case set up in suit notice or in the plaint is not true and rebut the presumption under Section 118 by showing a preponderance of probabilities in his favour and against the plaintiff. He need not lead evidence on all conceivable modes of consideration for establishing that the promissory note is not supported by any consideration whatsoever. The words 'until the contrary is proved' in Section 118 do not mean that the defendant must necessarily show that the document is not supported by any form of consideration but the defendant has the option to ask the Court to consider the non-existence of consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the case, to act upon the supposition that consideration did not exist. Though the evidential burden is initially placed on the defendant by virtue of Section 118 it can be rebutted by the defendant by showing a preponderance of probabilities that such consideration as stated in the pronote, or in the suit notice or in the plaint does not exist and once the presumption is so rebutted, the said presumption 'disappears'. Though the evidential burden is initially placed on the defendant by virtue of Section 118 it can be rebutted by the defendant by showing a preponderance of probabilities that such consideration as stated in the pronote, or in the suit notice or in the plaint does not exist and once the presumption is so rebutted, the said presumption 'disappears'. For the purpose of rebutting the initial evidential burden, the defendant can rely on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or on presumptions of law or fact. Once such convincing rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the Court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the plaintiff who has also the legal burden. Thereafter, the presumption under Section 118 does not again come to the plaintiff's rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance. Let me consider whether the defendants rebutted the presumption in the light of the principle enunciated in the case cited supra. 12. The specific stand of the first defendant is that in order to discharge the entire debt amount, he convinced his wife (second defendant), who in turn executed sale deed dated 10.1.1997 in respect of her house in favour of the plaintiff. Mere assertion in the written statement by itself is not sufficient to substantiate the stand of the defendant. The factum of execution of sale deed by second defendant in favour of plaintiff, is not mentioned in the plaint. Likewise, there is no mention in the plaint that plaintiff returned the promissory notes Exs.B2, B3 and B4 along with Ex.B1 to second defendant. The plaintiff did not issue legal notice prior to filing of the suit. The defendants have taken specific stand in the written statement that they have discharged the amount covered under Ex.A1. 13. The purpose of cross-examination of witness, in a civil suit, is to elicit the truth and also to improbablise the stand of the opposite party. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 in unequivocal terms admitted that he purchased the house from the second defendant for Rs.77,000/-. It is not out of place to extract here the relevant portion in the cross-examination of P.W.1. "The signature shown to him in the letter (shown by the learned counsel) is mine. It is Ex.B1. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 in unequivocal terms admitted that he purchased the house from the second defendant for Rs.77,000/-. It is not out of place to extract here the relevant portion in the cross-examination of P.W.1. "The signature shown to him in the letter (shown by the learned counsel) is mine. It is Ex.B1. Ex.B1 is in my handwriting. Exs.B2 and B3 are promissory notes referred in Ex.B1." The stand of the first defendant that the plaintiff returned Exs.B2, B3 and B4 along with Ex.B1 is admitted by the plaintiff. Exs.B2, B3 and B4 are the promissory notes for Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.6,000/- respectively. Basing on the material available on record, the court can safely arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiff returned Exs.B2, B3 and B4 promissory notes, as the second defendant executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff towards discharge of the amounts covered under the promissory notes. As per the testimony of P.W.1, he paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the second defendant at the time of registration of sale deed. As per the testimony of D.W.1, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.2,500/- to second defendant. Except the self-served testimony of both the parties, there is no convincing evidence on behalf of either of the parties that what is the amount paid by plaintiff to the second defendant. As per the testimony of D.W.1, the plaintiff purchased house for Rs.1,50,000/-but the consideration amount is shown as Rs.77,000/- in the sale deed. It is a known fact that market value of the property will always be higher than the registration value. Normally the vendee requests the vendor to show less amount of consideration in the sale deed so as to overcome the payment of higher stamp duty. The court can take judicial notice of these facts while appreciating the rival contentions. 14. As per the testimony of D.W.1, the plaintiff agreed to return the suit promissory note along with other utensils to him. However, plaintiff denied the suggestion that he agreed to return Ex.A1 promissory note. It is not out of place to extract hereunder the relevant portion of Ex.B1. "….. 46,000 …..40,000 ……… ……….. (1.2.97) L.R. Navata …….." A perusal of Ex.B1 at a glance reveals that the plaintiff has agreed to return 40,000 paper along with the household articles to the first defendant on or before 01.2.1997. It is not out of place to extract hereunder the relevant portion of Ex.B1. "….. 46,000 …..40,000 ……… ……….. (1.2.97) L.R. Navata …….." A perusal of Ex.B1 at a glance reveals that the plaintiff has agreed to return 40,000 paper along with the household articles to the first defendant on or before 01.2.1997. The plaintiff used the word "40,000 paper" instead of "promissory note". Whether the word "40,000 paper" can be connected to Ex.A1 promissory note or not is a crucial question to be determined by this court by taking into consideration the other attending circumstances. In Ex.B1, the plaintiff stated that "papers of 46,000 were returned". A careful perusal of Ex.B1 clearly indicates that the plaintiff used the word "40,000 paper" to connote "Ex.A1 promissory note". The court has to interpret the words used in a document in the context they are used. Even assuming, but not admitting, that the word "40,000 paper" is something else than Ex.A1, then it is the duty of the plaintiff to explain what happened to that 40,000 paper having admitted the same in Ex.B1. The relevant portion of the cross-examiantion of P.W.1 on this aspect is as follows, "Ex.A1 is also referred in Ex.B1." Immediately after stating so, plaintiff realized the mistake committed by him and denied the suggestion that he obtained registered sale deed from the second defendant for collective amount of Exs.A1, B2 B3 and B4. Basing on the recitals of Ex.B1 coupled with admissions made by P.W.1 in his cross-examination, the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is "40,000 paper" as mentioned in Ex.B1 refers to "Ex.A1 promissory note" only and nothing else. If really the intention of the plaintiff is not to return the suit promissory note what made him to mention in Ex.B1 about Rs.40,000/- promissory note and admitting the same in the cross-examination. 15. The trial court disbelieved the version of the first defendant on the sole ground that as on the date of Ex.B1, the plaintiff did not file the suit and the "40,000 paper" referred in Ex.B1 cannot be matched with Ex.A1 promissory note. If really the plaintiff did not receive the amounts covered under Ex.A1, what prompted him to make a reference in Ex.B1. Taking advantage of the custody of Ex.A1, the possibility of filing the present suit by the plaintiff for unlawful gain cannot be ruled out completely. If really the plaintiff did not receive the amounts covered under Ex.A1, what prompted him to make a reference in Ex.B1. Taking advantage of the custody of Ex.A1, the possibility of filing the present suit by the plaintiff for unlawful gain cannot be ruled out completely. The first appellate court took pain in calculating the amount covered under Exs.A1, B2, B3 and B4. The principal amount and the interest accrued towards Exs.A1, B2, B3 and B4 was Rs.1,47,440/-as on the date of registration of second defendant's house in favour of the plaintiff. The appreciation of evidence does not mean placing reliance on a particular part of the document or evidence of a witness. The court has to take into consideration the totality of the facts and the circumstances of the case in order to arrive at just conclusion. The stand of the first defendant that the plaintiff agreed to purchase the house of second defendant for Rs.1,50,000/- is more probable and believe. 16. The trial court has not properly considered the admission made by P.W.1 in his cross-examination in touchstone with the recitals of Ex.B1. If really the plaintiff had paid the amount of Rs.25,000/- to second defendant, what prevented him to mention the same in the plaint. As per the version of the plaintiff, the second defendant stood as guarantor. If that is so, how the plaintiff agreed to return 40,000 paper i.e., Ex.A1 without receiving the amount covered under it. The stand taken by the defendants is clearly established by placing reliance on Ex.B1. Ex.B1 is in the hand-writing of the plaintiff and he admitted the contents of the same. In such circumstances, the court can place reliance on it. There is no material on record that the defendants executed promissory notes in connection with chit transaction. 17. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the first appellate court has assigned cogent and valid reasons to its findings. The first appellate court has considered the oral testimony of witnesses with reference to Exs.B1 to B4 and arrived to a right a conclusion that the defendants have discharged the amount covered under Ex.A1. As observed earlier, the trial court has not properly considered the admission made by the plaintiff in his cross-examination with reference to Ex.B1. I am fully agreeing with the findings recorded by the first appellate court. As observed earlier, the trial court has not properly considered the admission made by the plaintiff in his cross-examination with reference to Ex.B1. I am fully agreeing with the findings recorded by the first appellate court. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 18. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment dated 30.4.2004 in A.S.No.44 of 2003 on the file of VI Additional District Judge (III Fast Track Court), Warangal at Mahabubabad. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. The miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this second appeal shall stand closed.