JUDGMENT V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J. - The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 06.09.2007, in O.S. No. 1127 of 2004 passed by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondent herein is the Defendant in the said Suit. 2. The Appellant/Plaintiff filed the Suit praying for passing of a decree directing the Respondent/Defendant to deposit the Suit amount of Rs.3,90,000/- with costs and subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of Suit till the date fixed by the Court for redeeming the mortgage debt and, on failure to deposit the amount in time, to pass final decree for the suit amount with subsequent contractual interest among other reliefs. 3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.1127 of 2004, are as under: (i) The Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Plaintiff on 07.06.2002 by executing a demand promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff on the same day at Vijayawada, promising to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the Plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, the Defendant created equitable mortgage of property situated in Kothapeta 1-Town, Vijayawada, vide Document No.1391 of 1996 on 15.06.2002 and deposited title deeds of the said property along with memorandum of deposit of title deeds on 15.06.2002. (ii) Towards part payment of debt, the Defendant issued a cheque for Rs.75,000/- on 11.10.2004 drawn on the Federal Bank Limited, Governorpet, Vijayawada, and when the cheque was presented with the Plaintiff's banker Vijaya Bank, Governorpet Branch, Vijayawada, the same was dishonoured for 'insufficient funds' in the bank account of the Defendant. Though, the Plaintiff sent notice to the Defendant, no reply was given. Hence, the Suit is filed praying for the reliefs, as stated supra. 5. The brief averments of the written statement, filed by the Defendant, is as under: - (i) The Defendant while denying the material averments made in the plaint pleaded that the Plaintiff was working as Clerk in Bhagyarekha Finance & Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd, which was maintained by Sri. J.N.Prasad, Sri. K.Srinivas Kumar and Sri. P.Srinivas. 5. The brief averments of the written statement, filed by the Defendant, is as under: - (i) The Defendant while denying the material averments made in the plaint pleaded that the Plaintiff was working as Clerk in Bhagyarekha Finance & Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd, which was maintained by Sri. J.N.Prasad, Sri. K.Srinivas Kumar and Sri. P.Srinivas. All of them fraudulently obtained some documents from the Defendant including five signed blank cheques bearing No.090715, 090716, 090717, 090718, 090720 of Federal Bank Limited, Governorpet, Vijayawada. Thereafter, the aforesaid persons with the aid of the Plaintiff got filed the Suit, which Suit has no cause of action. The Defendant denied executing any equitable mortgage or issuance of any cheque in favour of the Plaintiff. Though, the Defendant got issued reply notice, dated 15.02.2005, to the Plaintiff seeking for return of documents, but without issuing any reply, the Plaintiff filed the Suit on untenable grounds and, accordingly, pleaded to dismiss the Suit with costs. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the Suit documents are true, valid and binding on defendant? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from defendant? (iii) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of the Defendant, DW1 to DW3 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B29 were marked. 8. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the Suit vide its Judgment, dated 06.09.2007, against which the present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Plaintiff in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. In-spite of the notice being served on the Respondent on 14.03.2023 and after adjourning the Appeal from time-to-time i.e., on 24.03.2023, 09.11.2023, 16.11.2023 and 20.11.2023, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 10. 9. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. In-spite of the notice being served on the Respondent on 14.03.2023 and after adjourning the Appeal from time-to-time i.e., on 24.03.2023, 09.11.2023, 16.11.2023 and 20.11.2023, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 10. The learned Counsel for the Appellant would contend that without considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and without considering the admissions of the Respondent about her signature on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in her evidence, the trial Court dismissed the Suit and, therefore, the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal may be allowed. 11. Having regard to the pleadings in the Suit and the finding recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before the trial Court, the following points would arise for determination: (i) Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? If so, to what extent? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Suit claim as prayed for? 12. Point: The case of the Plaintiff is that, the Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Plaintiff on 07.06.2002 and also executed a demand promissory note in favor of the Plaintiff on the same day at Vijayawada promising to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the Plaintiff or to his order on demand. The Plaintiff further pleaded that the Defendant also created equitable mortgage on 15.06.2002, evidencing the borrowing of amount under the promissory note and also deposited her title deed. The Plaintiff further pleaded that after repeated demands made by him, the Defendant issued a cheque for Rs.75,000/- on 11.10.2004 towards part payment of debt, but the same is dishonoured and subsequently a notice was issued to the Defendant, but she failed to give any reply, in order to discharge her liability, to pay the Suit claim. 13. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff relied on his self-testimony as PW1. As per his evidence, the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him on 07.06.2002 under Ex.Al - promissory note. 13. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff relied on his self-testimony as PW1. As per his evidence, the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him on 07.06.2002 under Ex.Al - promissory note. He also deposed in his evidence about the deposit of title deed by evidencing factum of borrowing of amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 07.06.2002 and so also creation of an equitable mortgage on 15.06.2002 itself. The Plaintiff relied on Ex.A1- promissory note, Ex.A2 - memorandum of deposit of title deed, Ex.A3 -original title deed. It is not in dispute that the signature on Ex.A1 - promissory note, dated 0706.2002, and so also on memorandum of deposit of title deed [Ex.A2], dated 15.06.2002, is not at all disputed by the Defendant and so also the Defendant did not deny about the deposit of Ex.A3 -original title deed. As per her own admissions in her evidence, the signature on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 belongs to her and she also deposited Ex.A3 - title deed. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A4 - office copy of legal notice, dated 14.10.2004, clearly goes to show about issuance of legal notice by the Plaintiff demanding to discharge the said debt. The material on record further reveals that the Defendant did not issue any reply to Ex.A4 - notice, though Ex.A5 - reply notice, is dated 15.02.2005, is filed by the Plaintiff, which clearly goes to show that subsequent to filing of the Suit only the Defendant issued a reply on 15.02.2005. The present Suit is filed in the year 2004 by the Plaintiff before the trial Court. In rossexamination, the evidence of PW1 is not at all disturbed on the material aspects of the case. It is not the case of the Defendant that she is having enmity with the Plaintiff and so that he filed the present Suit against the Defendant. 14. To discharge his initial burden, the Plaintiff relied on the evidence of one of the attester and examined the said attester as 'PW2'. PW2 in his evidence deposed about the borrowing of Rs.2,50,000/- by the Defendant and so also execution of Ex.Al - promissory note on 07.06.2002 in favour of the Plaintiff. In cross-examination, the evidence of PW2 is not at all disturbed on the material aspects of the case. No enmity suggested to PW2 to depose falsehood against the Defendant. 15. PW2 in his evidence deposed about the borrowing of Rs.2,50,000/- by the Defendant and so also execution of Ex.Al - promissory note on 07.06.2002 in favour of the Plaintiff. In cross-examination, the evidence of PW2 is not at all disturbed on the material aspects of the case. No enmity suggested to PW2 to depose falsehood against the Defendant. 15. To discharge his burden, the Plaintiff also examined the scribe of the promissory note as 'PW3'. PW3 also deposed in his evidence about borrowing of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Plaintiff on 07.06.2002 and so also execution of Ex.A1 -promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff. In crossexamination, no enmity suggested to PW3 to depose falsehood against the Defendant. 16. The evidence of PW2 is well corroborated by the evidence of PW3 in all aspects including the borrowing an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and so also execution of Ex.Al -promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff. As stated supra, no enmity was suggested to the PW2 and PW3 to depose falsehood against the Defendant. The Defendant is unable to show any reason or circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 to PW3 regarding the execution of Ex.A1 - promissory note by the Defendant and so also passing of consideration. Therefore, the Plaintiff discharged his initial burden to prove the Suit debt. 17. In order to prove the defense, the Defendant relied on her self-testimony as 'DW1'. As per her evidence, she never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff and she never executed any promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff. Though, she relied on Ex.B1 to B29, those are no way helpful to prove the defense taken by the Defendant in her pleadings itself. 18. DW2 and DW3 are the third parties. DW3 is none other than the wife of DW2. As per their evidence, the Defendant never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favor of the Plaintiff. DW2 and DW3 not having any personal knowledge about the Suit transaction. Their evidence is confined with regard to joining as subscriber in Bhagya Rekha Finance and Chit Fund Private Limited. 19. It is relevant to say about the admissions made by the DW2. DW2 admits in his evidence in cross-examination itself that the Defendant is his family friend and so also he is neighbour and he was not present at the time of transaction. 19. It is relevant to say about the admissions made by the DW2. DW2 admits in his evidence in cross-examination itself that the Defendant is his family friend and so also he is neighbour and he was not present at the time of transaction. Therefore, his testimony is no way helpful to prove the defense of the Defendant. Another witness of the Defendant i.e., DW3 made admissions in her evidence in crossexamination that, she does not have personal relationship with the Defendant, but she is neighbor of her mother-in-law, as such she got acquaintance with her. Another admission made by DW3 is that, DW1 subscribed to a chit in Bhagya Rekha Finance and Chit Fund and she do not know about the details of the mortgage property. Therefore, the evidence of DW3 is also no way helpful to the Defendant to disprove the case of the Plaintiff. 20. It is relevant to say that the Defendant herself is admitted in her evidence in cross-examination that the signature across revenue stamps in Ex.A1 is that of her; the signature on Ex.A2 is also that of her, and Ex.A3 is her title deed. There was a clear admission by the Defendant in her evidence itself that signature on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 belongs to her and she deposited title deed. 21. The signature on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are not at all disputed, deposit of Ex.A3 is not at all disputed by the Defendant. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 clearly proves that the Defendant borrowed money of Rs.2,50,000/- on 07.06.2002 and executed Ex.Al - promissory note and later on 15.06.2002 she executed a memorandum of deposit of title deed under Ex.A2 and subscribed her signature in Ex.A2 itself and deposited Ex.A3 - title deed with an intention to create mortgage of her property; she herself executed Ex.A2 and deposited Ex.A3 - title deed. In Ex.A2 - past transaction of borrowing money under Ex.A1 is recorded. 22. As stated supra, the signature on the Suit promissory note [Ex.A1] and so also on memorandum of deposit of title deed [Ex.A2] is not at all disputed by the Defendant. 23. It is a settled law that the best evidence in the case is an admission of opposite party. Admissions are valuable evidence, because the party herself admits it being true. It may reasonably presume to be so until the presumption is rebutted. 23. It is a settled law that the best evidence in the case is an admission of opposite party. Admissions are valuable evidence, because the party herself admits it being true. It may reasonably presume to be so until the presumption is rebutted. The fact admitted must be taken to be established. The effect of admissions is merely to shift the onus to disproving on the party making them unless a plea of estoppel can be successfully invoked. 24. It is noteworthy to note that, there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of oral evidence of witness. The credibility of the witnesses is the paramount consideration for the Court. The Court has to consider various parameters so as to appreciate the oral evidence on the point by testing the same on the touchstone of the two important yardsticks viz., the probabilities and surrounding circumstances among various other parameters. 25. As stated supra, the Plaintiff discharged his initial burden to prove about the borrowing of Rs.2,50,000/- by the Defendant and so also execution of Ex.Al - promissory note in favor of the Plaintiff and so also execution of Ex.A2 on a later date i.e., on 15.06.2002 by depositing Ex.A3 - title deed with an intention to create mortgage of her property. She herself executed Ex.A2 and so also, as stated surpa, deposited Ex.A3 - title deed. Ex.A2 reflects the past transaction of borrowing money of Rs.2,50,000/- under Ex.A1. 26. As stated supra, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is consistent and convincing to prove the case of the Plaintiff. To rebut the said evidence, the Defendant did not adduce any cogent evidence, but the trial Court unfortunately came to conclusion that the Plaintiff failed to prove Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and further did not consider the admissions of the Defendant in her evidence in cross-examination itself and simply dismissed the Suit. Therefore, the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set-aside, as the same is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, the point is answered. 27. In the result, the Appeal is allowed, the Decree and Judgment passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in O.S. No. 1127 of 2004 is liable to be set-aside. Therefore, the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set-aside, as the same is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, the point is answered. 27. In the result, the Appeal is allowed, the Decree and Judgment passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in O.S. No. 1127 of 2004 is liable to be set-aside. Resultantly, O.S. No. 1127 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, is preliminary decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.3,96,000/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.2,50,000/- from the date of Suit till the date of Decree and, thereafter, @ 6% per annum till the date of realization. The time for redemption is three [03] months. Both parties shall bear their own costs in the Appeal. 28. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.