JUDGMENT : 1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed by the appellant/Defendant challenging the decree and Judgment, dated 28.03.2012 in O.S. No.13 of 2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, (for short, ‘trial court’). 2. Respondent, the plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S. No.13 of 2010 seeking recovery of Rs.7,52,000/-on the foot of a promissory note against the defendant. 3. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The facts leading to the present Appeal, in a nutshell, are as under: (a) On 05.01.2008, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his business and family expenses and executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, despite repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit debt. On 02.02.2010, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to repay the suit debt and the same was received by the defendant, but he neither gave any reply nor complied with the demand. (b) The defendant is not an agriculturist. He is not entitled to the benefits of Act 7 of 77, Act 45 of 87, Act 2 of 90 and Act 3 of 38. 5. Defendant filed the written statement, contending that he did not borrow money from the plaintiff on 05.01.2008 and the suit promissory note was a forged one. After receiving legal notice, the defendant placed the matter before the elders, and the plaintiff admitted that he issued legal notice due to oversight. Hence, the defendant did not reply, and this suit was filed due to political rivalry. The plaintiff cannot lend the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/-and has no property. The defendant is an agriculturist and is entitled to the benefits of Act 4/38; the attachment of the defendant's landed property shows that he is an agriculturist. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid, and supported by consideration? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for? (3) To what relief? 7. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for? (3) To what relief? 7. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined, and no documents were marked. 8. After the completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court partly decreed the suit for Rs.5,00,000/- with proportionate costs with interest @ 12.5% p.a., on a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-from the date of pronote till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization. 9. Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, contends that the burden of establishing Ex.A.1 is on the respondent/plaintiff and not on the appellant as per law; PW.1 did not even state that the scribe and attestors were present at the time of execution of Ex.A.1 and payment of consideration and PW.2 scribe stated that he scribed the Ex.A.2 and went away and that the attestors were not examined. Consequently, the execution of Ex.A.1, including the appellant's signature, is not proved. The trial Court should have seen that the plaintiff should send Ex.A.1 to an expert to establish his case. He further contends that the plaintiff failed to establish that he could lend such a huge amount, and the trial Court failed to consider this aspect. The trial Court should have dismissed the suit as Ex.A.1 is a forged document, and no consideration is passed. The trial Court erred in not framing any issue as to whether the appellant is an agriculturist and is entitled to the benefit of Act 4 of 1938. 10. Per contra, Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contends that the trial Court correctly appreciated the case facts and came to a correct conclusion. The reasons given by the trial Court do not require any interference. 11. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the Trial Court and in light of the rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination: 1) Whether the Trial Court justified in holding that the execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note on receipt of consideration amount by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff? 2) Whether the Judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference? POINT NOs.1 & 2: 12. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined as PW.1. The PW.1’s evidence is not disputed regarding sending of legal notice (vide Ex.A.2) to the defendant and receiving the notice vide Ex.A.3 (postal acknowledgement). In this regard, DW.1 deposed that he received the legal notice and did not give a reply, and there is no evidence to show that the matter was placed before elders. The defendant did not disclose the names of the mediators who approached the plaintiff. The defendant, who was examined as DW.1, has not explained the reasons for not sending the reply notice. The defendant has not examined the alleged mediators to prove his contention. The defendant has taken an incorrect plea to explain the reasons for not sending the reply notice. 13. The plaintiff, as PW.1, testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-from him for his business investment and family expenses and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note on 05.01.2008, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. As per DW.1's evidence, he did not execute Ex.A.1 promissory note. He testified that the suit promissory note was forged because of disputes between him and the plaintiff. The said plea is not taken in the written statement. It is a developed version during the time of trial. In the cross-examination, DW.1 stated that he and the plaintiff have no disputes. So the defendant has given an incorrect version in this regard. 14. In the cross-examination, PW.1 stated that the defendant has land, but he does not know whether he is doing cultivation, but he got attached his land before Judgment. The 1st attestor belongs to Neeladrirao Peta, and the 2nd attestor is a resident of Jaggampeta. Coming to the PW.2’s evidence (Sadhu Nageswara Rao), he supported the plaintiff's case by deposing that he was present at the time of the transaction, and the plaintiff instructed him to prepare the suit promissory note. The suit transaction took place at the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff, defendant and one K.Gangadhar and B.Kasi Visweswar Rao were present, and they attested the Ex.A.1 promissory note. After receiving the consideration from the plaintiff, the defendant signed the Ex.A.1 promissory note. The suit transaction took place at the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff, defendant and one K.Gangadhar and B.Kasi Visweswar Rao were present, and they attested the Ex.A.1 promissory note. After receiving the consideration from the plaintiff, the defendant signed the Ex.A.1 promissory note. No doubt, it is elicited in PW.2's cross-examination that he wrote Ex.A.1 on the instructions of PW.1; later, he handed it over to PW.1 and went away. Based on the said PW.2's evidence, it is contended that he was not present at the time of the execution of the Ex.A.1 promissory note and passing of consideration. This Court views that a mere stray sentence elicited in the cross-examination is insufficient to discredit his evidence. 15. More particularly, PW.2, in the following sentence, denied the suggestion that no suit transaction was taken place. It is also further contended that as PW.2 scribed the promissory note, his evidence cannot be treated as a witness to the transaction as he is not an attestor. It cannot be laid down as a matter of law that because PW.2 acted as a scribe, it cannot be assumed that he has not witnessed the transaction. PW.2’s evidence shows that the transaction took place in his presence, and he witnessed the passing of consideration. The plaintiff did not take steps to examine the attestors of the promissory note. The PW.2's evidence shows that he has also seen the execution of the promissory note and the signing of the promissory note by the attestors. Therefore, PW.2 could also be treated as a witness to the transaction. There could be no difference of opinion as to the legal proposition that the scribe of a document could also be a witness if the transaction were held in his presence. The fact that a person scribed the document does not debar him from being a witness if he has witnessed the execution. PW.2 deposed that he had seen the executant signing the Ex.A.1 promissory note and receiving the consideration amount thereunder. 16. In Bonala Raju And Anr. vs Sarupuru Sreenivasulu, 2006 (1) ALD 745 : 2006 (2) ALT 202 , the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that: 12. The fact that none of the attestors to Ex.A1 are examined is also of no consequence and is not fatal to the case of the respondent because the promissory note is not a compulsory attestable document. The fact that none of the attestors to Ex.A1 are examined is also of no consequence and is not fatal to the case of the respondent because the promissory note is not a compulsory attestable document. Similarly, non-examination of the scribe is also not relevant because it is for the respondent to decide how to prove execution of Ex.A1. He can be satisfied by examining himself and making a request to the Court to compare the signatures and give findings. The appellants could have examined the attestor and scribe on their side when the respondent failed to examine them to rebut the case of the respondent. But, for reasons known only to them, they did not choose to do so. 17. There is no contrary evidence that the signatures found in Ex.A1 are not the signatures of the appellant/defendant. The plaintiff and P.W.2 categorically deposed that the defendant had subscribed his signature, and consideration was passed. On the contrary, the appellant has taken a stand in the written statement that his signature was forged. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that unless the contrary is proved when the signature is proved, the passing of consideration also stands proved. The plaintiff had let in evidence to prove the execution and signature of the defendant. Once the presumption is raised, the burden to prove the contrary shifts on the shoulders of the defendant. It is true to state that it is difficult to prove the negative. It can only be rebutted by giving evidence and probabilising the defence that there was no necessity to borrow and no such circumstances existed leading to the alleged execution of the promissory note. 18. In Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Vs Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 S.C.C. 35 , the Hon’ble Apex Court was held thus : “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. 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 disentitle 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 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. In Duggineni Seshagirirao vs K.Venkatarao, 2001 (6) A.L.T. 95 , the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that: “The plaintiff has been able to prove the execution of the document. If the document was disputed or doubted, the onus was on the defendant to show that the document was forgery because the presumption in favour of the plaintiff under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act”. 20. If the document was disputed or doubted, the onus was on the defendant to show that the document was forgery because the presumption in favour of the plaintiff under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act”. 20. In Bonalaraju’s case (cited supra), the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad further held that: “Once execution is proved, the presumption under Section 118 of N.I. Act that it is supported by consideration automatically applies and the contention that the plaintiff is not only to establish the execution but also establish passing of the consideration, is rejected”. 21. In Abbisetti Krishnamoorthy V. Singasani Raghuramaiah (died) per L.R.s, 2011(5) ALT 143 the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that: "Section 118 of the N. I Act shows that the presumption attached to passage of consideration (as is the subject matter of this Appeal), just like other presumptions, also is clearly rebuttable, and it is for the defendant to satisfy the Court that in a given case, the presumption cannot be drawn". 22. A cumulative reading of the precedent of the Honourable Apex Court and the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that in the event of the plaintiff capable of ushering in Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the initial burden is on the defendant to establish at least by a preponderance of probabilities, that there was no passing of consideration under the promissory note, whereupon only the burden would get shifted to the plaintiff to prove that the negotiable instrument was supported by consideration. 23. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 manifestly establishes execution of the suit promissory note Ex.A.1 by the defendant. The defendant has not taken steps to show that Ex.A.1 does not contain his signatures. Section 118(a) of N. I Act provides a special rule of evidence in the case of a Negotiable Instrument contrary to the case of an ordinary contract. The party denying the consideration has to prove want of consideration. The statutory presumption in favour of their being considered for every negotiable instrument continues until it is rebutted. The distinction between the language of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 118(a) of the N. I Act is significant. The party denying the consideration has to prove want of consideration. The statutory presumption in favour of their being considered for every negotiable instrument continues until it is rebutted. The distinction between the language of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 118(a) of the N. I Act is significant. The words "may presume" in section 114 of the Evidence Act leave the matter to the discretion of the Court either to make or refuse to make a presumption. The presumption is optional depending upon the Court's unrestricted discretion under section 114 of the Evidence Act. Under section 118(a) Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court is bound to start with the presumption in favour of passing of consideration until the party interested in disproving it, has led evidence supporting its non-existence. 24. Having regard to the evidence, which is adverted to supra, this Court views that the defendant did not show satisfactory and reliable evidence or circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding the execution of the promissory note Ex.A.1 by the defendant and passing of consideration. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is consistent regarding the execution of the promissory note Ex.A.1 by the defendant on receipt of the consideration amount. Inference of preponderance of probability can be drawn from the materials on record and by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. As already observed, the defendant did not send a reply notice to the plaintiff and offered an incorrect explanation. Though he had no disputes with the plaintiff, he contended that as if there were disputes between them. He failed to explain the circumstances to forge his signature and create the promissory note. He did not produce the documents containing his admitted signatures for comparison by the Court. 25. It is incomprehensible why the defendant did not file any application to compare disputed signatures on Ex.A.1 promissory note. He did not file contemporary documents along with the written statement, or at least during the trial. Under section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court can compare the disputed signature with the admitted signatures. 26. Though PWs.1 and 2 were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discredit their evidence. The plaintiff and his witness have no reason to fabricate the suit promissory note. Under section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court can compare the disputed signature with the admitted signatures. 26. Though PWs.1 and 2 were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discredit their evidence. The plaintiff and his witness have no reason to fabricate the suit promissory note. PW.2 has no reason to depose falsehood against the defendant’s interest, and he would gain nothing by supporting the plaintiff’s case unless there is a truth in it. 27. In the present case, the defendant has not rebutted the presumption, even by the preponderance of probabilities. PWs.1 and 2 stated in one voice about the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note and passing of consideration amount. 28. On studied scrutiny, it is seen that the defendant has not produced any evidence to discharge the onus on him. The defence taken by the defendant is not substantiated. The presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a statutory one, and unless it is rebutted, it has to be presumed that consideration has passed. 29. The upshot of the discussion above is that the plaintiff established the execution of the suit promissory note Ex.A.1 in his favour by the defendant after receipt of the consideration amount. 30. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest at 24% p.a. As seen from the plaint, the plaintiff has calculated interest from the date of the suit promissory note transaction, i.e., 05.01.2008, to the date of filing of the suit, i.e., 11.02.2010 @ 24% p.a., and thereby, he filed the suit for Rs.7,52,000/-. The trial Court passed the decree for Rs.5,00,000/-with proportionate costs with interest @ 12.5% p.a. on a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-from the date of pronote till the date of the decree. It shows that the trial Court has granted pre-lite and post-lite interest @ 12.5% p.a. As such, this Court holds that the contentions raised by the appellant/defendant are not sustainable concerning the interest awarded by the trial Court. 31. For the reasons stated above, this Court views that the findings and observations of the trial court are as per the evidence on record and well-settled principles. Given the discussion above and considering the legal aspects involved in the case, the view taken by the trial court does not call for any interference, and this Appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. Given the discussion above and considering the legal aspects involved in the case, the view taken by the trial court does not call for any interference, and this Appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment passed by the trial court is upheld. Accordingly, the points are answered in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 32. As a result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed without costs by confirming the Decree and Judgment in O.S. No.13 of 2010, dated 28.03.2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal shall stand closed.