JUDGMENT Subba Reddy Satti, J. - The appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the decree and judgment, dated 15.02.2001 passed in O.S.No.145 of 1996 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the O.S.No.145 of 1996. 3. The plaintiff initially filed O.S.No.145 of 1996 against the sole defendant initially for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,37,600/-, principal being Rs.80,000/-. Pending the suit, the sole defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.2 to 6. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that on 28.12.1993, defendant No.1 borrowed Rs.80,000/- for his family necessities promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. It was further pleaded that inspite of repeated oral demands by the plaintiff and her husband, defendant No.1 failed to repay the amount and hence, suit was filed. 5. Defendant No.1, during his life time, filed written statement and denied the borrowal of amount and execution of alleged promissory note, dated 28.12.1993. He contended inter alia that plaintiff is his younger sister; that she filed O.S.No.55 of 1996 on the file of learned District Munsif Court, alampur against the defendant, his two elder brothers and their father for permanent injunction basing on the alleged gift deeds said to have been executed by Edanna (father); that father Edanna revoked three gift deeds; that O.S.No.55 of 1996 was dismissed on 09.12.1996; that plaintiff with the help of her husband, G. Venkata Swamy, Ex-Municipal Councillor and others, fabricated the promissory note; that plaintiff examined herself as PW1 in O.S.No.55 of 1996, but did not depose about borrowal of the suit amount of Rs.80,000/- on 28.12.1993; that the signature of defendant is forged and no notice was issued prior to filing of the suit and hence prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 6. On behalf of the plaintiff, she examined herself as PW1 besides examining one of the attestor's of promissory note, as PW2 and got marked Ex.a1. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.2, wife of defendant No.1 was examined herself as DW1 besides examining Senior assistant of State Housing Corporation as DW2. Exs.B1 to B3 and Exs.X1 to X10 were marked. 7. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.2, wife of defendant No.1 was examined herself as DW1 besides examining Senior assistant of State Housing Corporation as DW2. Exs.B1 to B3 and Exs.X1 to X10 were marked. 7. The trial Court, after consideration of oral and documentary evidence, by decree and judgment, dated 15.02.2001 dismissed the suit without costs. aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. 8. Heard Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri C.S.K.V. Ramana Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law. The trial Court did not consider the evidence of PW2, one of the attestors' of Ex.a1. He would contend that the trial Court ought not to have come to the conclusion that defendant No.1 might not have signed Ex.a1 pronote in Telugu basing on Exs.X1 to X10 since the office record contains his signature in English. He also further contended that the Court below could not have compared the signatures available on Ex.a1 with Exs.X1 to X10. Eventually he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. 10. Learned counsel for the defendants supported the judgment of the trial Court. 11. Basing on the above contentions, the following points arise for consideration: 1. Whether Ex.a1, promissory note, dated 28.12.1993 is true, valid and binding on the defendants? 2. Whether the signature appearing on promissory note, Ex.a1 belongs to defendant No.1? 3. To what relief? POINT NOS.1 aND 2 12. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that, defendant No.1, her brother borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- on 28.12.1993 and executed Ex.a1, promissory note. Plaintiff also pleaded that interest agreed between the parties is 24% per annum. 13. Defendant No.1, during his life time filed written statement and denied execution of promissory note, borrowal of amount and further pleaded forgery. He also pleaded that the plaintiff filed O.S.No.55 of 1996 against himself, his two brothers and father basing on gift deeds executed by their father. The said suit was dismissed. He pleaded that since defendant No.1 is educated man and is working as an employee, the plaintiff with the assistance of her husband, who is an employee in Municipal Corporation and attestors, created the promissory note. 14. The said suit was dismissed. He pleaded that since defendant No.1 is educated man and is working as an employee, the plaintiff with the assistance of her husband, who is an employee in Municipal Corporation and attestors, created the promissory note. 14. The evidence of PW1 manifests that defendant No.1 is working as Work Inspector in Housing Corporation. She further deposed in her cross-examination that her brother used to sign in Telugu. However, plaintiff/P.W.1 notwithstanding the denial of the signature by the defendant No.1, failed to take steps to prove that defendant No.1 signed Ex.a1 in Telugu. She further deposed that there are no talking terms between the parties. 15. Normally, whenever a person borrows amount and failed to repay the amount as agreed, the lender demands the borrower to repay the amount. In case if the borrower failed to repay the amount lender would cause legal notice demanding the amount apart from oral demands. In the case on hand plaintiff deposed that she demanded orally. She further deposed that there are no taking terms between herself and defendant No.1. This part of the evidence of PW1 itself probablizes that since the plaintiff could not succeed in suit O.S.No.55 of 1996, Ex.a1/promissory note was created. The other circumstance is that at the time of filing the suit, defendant No.1 is residing at Kummari street, Kurnool, however in the cause title, the address of defendant No.1 was shown as if he is residing in his native place. She further deposed that she do not know how defendant No.1 died and she was told that defendant No.1 was murdered by somebody. This circumstance make things more than discernible that in view of the disputes between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, plaintiff with the help of her husband and attestors created Ex.a1, promissory note. 16. The suit O.S.No.55 of 1996 filed by the plaintiff against defendant No.1, his brothers and father in respect of landed property was dismissed after full length of trial and even the appeal preferred by her against the said judgment was also dismissed. 17. Plaintiff got examined PW2, one of the attestors. PW2 in his cross examination deposed that he knows the plaintiff and her husband for the last twenty years. He also deposed that he gave evidence in other cases also. The evidence of PW2 is not inspiring confidence about the execution of promissory note. 18. 17. Plaintiff got examined PW2, one of the attestors. PW2 in his cross examination deposed that he knows the plaintiff and her husband for the last twenty years. He also deposed that he gave evidence in other cases also. The evidence of PW2 is not inspiring confidence about the execution of promissory note. 18. against the evidence of PWs1 and 2, defendant No.2 examined herself as DW1 and examined Senior assistant of Housing Corporation, Mahboobnagar and through DW2, she got marked Exs.X1 to X10. 19. Defendant No.1 died pending the suit. During his lifetime, he filed written statement and denied the signature on the suit promissory note. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the signature on Ex.a1. 20. It is pertinent to mention here that a perusal of Ex.B1, certified copy of deposition of the plaintiff in O.S.No.55 of 1996 (appellant herein) shows that the plaintiff deposed that defendant Nos.2 to 4 in that suit (including defendant No.1 herein) borrowed an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from her about two years back. She further deposed that she lent Rs.80,000/-and it became Rs.1,05,000/- by June, 1995 and hence she obtained mortgage deed for the said amount from the defendants. 21. If really the deceased defendant No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- under Ex.a1, promissory note, dated 28.12.1993, she would have deposed about this borrowal also in the other suit. Having been deposed about other alleged borrowal of amount from her, appellant being P.W.1 would have deposed about borrowal of present suit debt also. Thus, all the circumstances amply demonstrate that Ex.a1, promissory note was not in existence by the date of giving evidence by PW1 i.e. appellant herein, in O.S.No.55 of 1996. 22. PW2, one of the attestors is a resident of alampur Municipality, Mahboobnagar District. The plaintiff is resident of Kurnool District and PW2 did not explain in his evidence as to why he came down to the house of plaintiff and attested Ex.a1, promissory note. 23. DW1, wife of the deceased deposed that her husband is getting Rs.4,000/- per month and they also possess ac.35-00 cents of land in alampur Mandal, Mahboobnagar District. Ex.X1 is service register, Ex.X2 is acquittance register of the deceased defendant No.1 and Exs.X3 to X9 are relevant entries in Ex.X2. Signatures of deceased defendant No.1 are in English. Even according to PW2, deceased defendant No.1 used to sign in English only. Ex.X1 is service register, Ex.X2 is acquittance register of the deceased defendant No.1 and Exs.X3 to X9 are relevant entries in Ex.X2. Signatures of deceased defendant No.1 are in English. Even according to PW2, deceased defendant No.1 used to sign in English only. Ex.X10 is letter, dated 25.10.2018 addressed by deceased defendant No.1 to his office. Though it is scribed in Telugu, signature is in English. In fact, the trial Court has taken pains and compared the signature appearing on Ex.a1 with the signature in Ex.X10 and came to conclusion that the writing of letter differs. 24. Since the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Ex.a1, and also signature of deceased defendant No.1 on Ex.a1, the presumption availed under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 is not available to the plaintiff. No cogent evidence was let in by the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.a1 and lending of money to the deceased defendant No.1. 25. Though it was argued that the trial Court did not consider the evidence in proper perspective, in fact the trial Court considered the evidence of witnesses as also documentary evidence in proper perspective and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff failed to prove passing of consideration as also the signature of deceased defendant No.1 on Ex.a1. Thus, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. POINT NO.3: 26. as discussed above, there are no merits in the appeal and the same liable to be dismissed. 27. accordingly this appeal is dismissed. No costs. 28. as a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.