JUDGMENT Subba Reddy Satti, J. - assailing the judgement and decree dated 30.11.2005 passed in OS No.158 of 2004 on the file of learned additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, plaintiff filed the above appeal. 2. For brevity and clear understanding the parties to the appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the plaint. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.5,14,932/-, principal amount being 3,00,000/-, basing on four promissory notes dated 06.06.2001 and two promissory notes dated 16.07.2001. 4. In the plaint it was contended inter alia that plaintiff and defendant, residents of Vijayawada, are acquainted with each other; that plaintiff being a mechanic came over to Kurnool for business; that defendant approached the plaintiff at Kurnool on 06.06.2001 for loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for his family necessities and executed four promissory notes each for Rs. 50,000/- on 06.06.2001 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum; that defendant again borrowed Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed two promissory notes for Rs. 50,000/- each on 16.07.2001 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum; that in spite of demand and legal notice dated 18.05.2004, defendant failed to repay the money and sent reply dated 25.05.2004 denying the transactions and hence, filed the suit for recovery of amount. 5. Defendant filed written statement and contented inter alia that the court at Kurnool had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that no consideration was passed under the promissory notes and the attestors belonged to Vijayawada. 6. 5. Defendant filed written statement and contented inter alia that the court at Kurnool had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that no consideration was passed under the promissory notes and the attestors belonged to Vijayawada. 6. It was further contented that plaintiff and defendant's father did kerosene business and used to sell the kerosene to truck drivers in Vijayawada, who in turn used kerosene instead of diesel, for long period; that plaintiff calculated the quantity in barrel at 200 litres however used to supply 170 litres; that during the course of carrying above said business plaintiff insisted for security and hence defendant's father gave eight blank printed promissory notes duly signed by the defendant as collateral security; that no transaction took place as alleged in the plaint and the Court at Kurnool has no jurisdiction; that truck drivers reported the mischief to the police and hence the business was abandoned and plaintiff shifted residence to Kurnool; that outstanding amount in the business was discharged by the defendant's father, however, dispute continued over payment of interest; that plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount; that plaintiff is in possession of eight blank promissory notes which were given as collateral security and they were not returned; that to the notice issued by plaintiff, suitable reply was issued and he prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 7. During the course of trial, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined scribe of 6 promissory notes as P.W.2. Exs.a-1 to a-10 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, he examined himself as D.W.1. However, no documents were marked. 8. The Trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit with costs by judgement dated 30.11.2004. aggrieved by the said judgment the above appeal was filed. 9. Heard, Sri J.M.U.V.Prasad learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri M.Balasubrahmanyam learned counsel appearing for respondents. Pending appeal, sole respondent died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 to 4 by order, dated 19.12.2008 passed in a.S.M.P.No.1022 of 2007. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is consistent with regard to execution of Exs a-1 to a-6, passing of consideration and payment of amount. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is consistent with regard to execution of Exs a-1 to a-6, passing of consideration and payment of amount. The observations of Court below, went against appellant, with regard to attestors coming from Vijayawada to Kurnool and writing on promissory notes using the same pen etc., are without proper appreciation of evidence. Thus, the learned counsel prayed the Court to allow the appeal. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that Lower Court appreciated the oral and documentary evidence properly and no interference is called for by this Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal. 12. In view of the contentions raised by both the counsel and material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether no consideration was passed under the suit promissory notes, Exs.a-1 to a-6 as pleaded by the respondents? 2. Whether the plaintiff had the capacity to pay the amount under Exs.a-1 to a-6? 3. Whether the promissory notes were executed at Kurnool? 4. To What Relief? Point Nos.1 and 2: 13. Since these points are interrelated, they are answered together. 14. averments in the plaint indicate about borrowing of amount by the defendant and execution of promissory notes under Exs.a-1 to a-6. apart from examining plaintiff himself as P.W.1, he also got examined scribe of all the promissory notes as P.W.2. 15. as the defendant admitted execution of Exs.a-1 to a-6, whether the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. act') would be available to the plaintiff basing on the evidence let in by the plaintiff is to be considered. 16. according to P.W.1., he is a lorry mechanic and earning Rs.50/- to Rs.150/- per day from his shop. He also further deposed that he had no other income. He also deposed that he did not draw the amount lent under Exs.a-1 to a-6. 17. a perusal of evidence of P.W.1 indicates that he could earn Rs.50/- to Rs. 150/- per day. a person earning Rs.50/- to Rs.150/- per day in the normal course may not be in a position to lend huge amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/-. 17. a perusal of evidence of P.W.1 indicates that he could earn Rs.50/- to Rs. 150/- per day. a person earning Rs.50/- to Rs.150/- per day in the normal course may not be in a position to lend huge amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/-. Inspite of specific plea of defendant that the plaintiff had no capacity to pay huge amount, appellant/plaintiff failed to adduce cogent evidence qua his capacity to lend the amount, except the evidence referred to supra. This circumstance probablizes the falsity in the contention of plaintiff that defendant received amount under Exs a-1 to a-6. at the same time, the above deposition of P.W.1 in cross examination supports the version of defendant that plaintiff had no capacity to pay huge amount and that no consideration under Exs.a-1 to a-6 was passed. In fact by eliciting the earning capacity of plaintiff, defendant discharged his burden and hence rebutted the presumption available to the plaintiff under Section 118 of N.I.act. 18. The Hon'ble apex Court dealt with presumption and burden of proof in Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company vs. amin Chand Payrelal aIR 1999 SC 1008 held that Upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would dis-entitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In such an event the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his favour. The court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led is to be seen with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the presumption the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which the court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not exist.' 19. as stated supra, a person earning Rs. 50/- to Rs.150/-per day, unless explains his means or source of income, shall not be in a position to lend Rs. 2,00,000/- and further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within a span of one and half month. Plaintiff could not explain his source of income to lend the same to the defendant. Thus, defendant discharged the initial onus of proof that payment of consideration under Exs a-1 to a-6 was improbable or doubtful. Therefore, the onus shifted to the plaintiff, but he could not prove his capacity to pay the amount and also passing of consideration under Exs a-1 to a-6. 20. Execution of 4 promissory notes for Rs. 2 lakhs and 2 promissory notes for Rs 1 lakh also creates any amount of suspicion in the mind of the Court as to execution of Exs.a-1 to a-6. Normally, any prudent person, upon lending the amount, would get one promissory note executed in his/her favour, for the amount so lent. In the instant case plaintiff could not explain under what circumstances he made defendant to execute six promissory notes for Rs.50,000/- each. Normally, any prudent person, upon lending the amount, would get one promissory note executed in his/her favour, for the amount so lent. In the instant case plaintiff could not explain under what circumstances he made defendant to execute six promissory notes for Rs.50,000/- each. The evidence of scribe of Exs.a-1 to a-6 is no way helpful to plaintiff. 21. a perusal of the promissory notes shows that Exs.a-1 to a-4 were executed on one date and Exs.a-5 and a-6 were executed nearly 40 days thereafter. However, writing indicates that all the promissory notes were scribed with the same pen but amount and date were scribed by a separate pen. No satisfactory explanation was offered to clear the ambiguity. 22. all the circumstances narrated supra amply proved that plaintiff had no capacity to lend Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,00/-on the respective dates. Thus, the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of passing of consideration under Exs.a-1 to a-6 and his capacity to lend such huge amount. Thus, these points are answered against the plaintiff. Point No.3: 23. The evidence on record shows, Exs a-1 to a-6, blank signed promissory notes were given to plaintiff as security at a time when business was conducted by plaintiff and defendant's father at Vijayawada. after abandoning the business, plaintiff shifted to Kurnool and pressed those blank signed Exs.a-1 to a-6 into service. Since the plaintiff started residing at Kurnool, he filed the suit at Kurnool though the blank signed promissory notes were given as collateral security at Vijayawada. Evidence of P.W2, scribe, also does not inspire confidence of Court. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that Exs.a-1 to a-6 were not executed at Kurnool. This point is answered accordingly. Point No.4: 24. In view of discussion supra, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 25. accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. However, no costs. 26. as a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.