JUDGMENT : This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/defendant challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 04.11.2003, in O.S. No.6 of 2000 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,88,200/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 01.02.1997 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.4,00,000/- and for costs. 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.6 of 2000, are as under: The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.02.1997 for the purpose of development of his business and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. But inspite of demands made by the plaintiff, defendant did not choose to pay any amount and has been postponing the same on one pretext or other. Plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendant on 22.01.2000. The defendant received the same and kept quite. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 5. The defendant filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: - This defendant did not execute the suit promissory note and it is a fabricated and forged document. Plaintiff is no other than the nephew of one Doreddi Gandhi. This defendant and the said Gandhi carried on a joint business in Pharmaceuticals. His wife was shown as a partner in the said business under the name and style of Sai Poorna Agencies. The said Gandhi, himself and on behalf of his wife was attending day to day transactions in respect of said business. In the said transactions Gandhi obtained the signatures of this defendant on several blank papers with stamps and without stamps, accordingly, the suit promissory note was brought into existence, through the plaintiff. This defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 6. In the said transactions Gandhi obtained the signatures of this defendant on several blank papers with stamps and without stamps, accordingly, the suit promissory note was brought into existence, through the plaintiff. This defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the suit pronote dated 01.02.1997 is true and correct and binding on defendant? (ii) 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.A3 were marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked. 8. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 04.11.2003, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard Sri T.Raghu, learned counsel, representing Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for appellant/defendant and Sri Srinivasa Rao Kurapati, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. 10. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination: 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff proved the execution of suit pronote and the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? 11. Point No.1 : Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff proved the execution of suit pronote and the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant? The claim of the plaintiff is based on Ex.A1 pronote said to have been executed by the defendant, since there is a plea of forgery and denial of execution of suit pronote, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the suit promissory note and passing of consideration amount under Ex.A1. 12. The plaintiff was examined as PW1. He reiterated his stand as per his respective pleading. 12. The plaintiff was examined as PW1. He reiterated his stand as per his respective pleading. PW1 testified about the borrowing of amount from him by the defendant under Ex.A1 pronote and also agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a. The evidence of PW1 clearly supports the case of the plaintiff about the execution of Ex.A1 suit pronote and also passing of consideration under Ex.A1 pronote. 13. The evidence of PW1 goes to show that the entire transaction was happened in the presence of scribe and attestors. It is trite beyond the pale controversy that the burden rests on the plaintiff’s shoulder to prove the claim satisfactory. Where both parties have chosen to advance their pleadings and adduce evidence, the concept of burden of proof looses its paramount significance. The totality of inputs will have to be reckoned by any prudent mind to decide whether the claim has been established and the plaintiff is entitled decree as prayed for. 14. As seen from the evidence on record, the plaintiff examined the scribe of the pronote as PW2 and one of the attestor in Ex.A1 pronote as PW3. PW2 categorically deposed in his evidence about the borrowing of Rs.4,00,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 pronote. In cross examination, the evidence of PW2 is not at all disturbed on the material aspects of the case. Similarly PW3 one of the attestor of Ex.A1 pronote clearly corroborated the evidence of PW1 and PW2. His evidence also goes to show about the borrowing of Rs.4,00,000/- by the defendant and so also execution of Ex.A1 pronote in favour of the plaintiff. 15. Per contra, the defendant examined himself as DW1. He simply denied about the execution of suit pronote. He deposed in his evidence that the suit pronote was got fabricated with the available signatures on blank papers at the instance of one Gandhi. As such, the controversy will have to be decided based on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and DW1. 16. In a civil cases rival contentions and rival evidence will have to be considered, assessed, evaluated and weighed to conclude whether the burden on the plaintiff has been discharged. As such, the controversy will have to be decided based on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and DW1. 16. In a civil cases rival contentions and rival evidence will have to be considered, assessed, evaluated and weighed to conclude whether the burden on the plaintiff has been discharged. In the case of R.Puthunainar Alhithan etc., vs. P.H.Pandian and others, 1996 (3) SCC 624 , the Apex Court held that: “an inference from the proved facts must be so probable that if the Court believes, from the proved facts, that the facts do exist, it must be held that the fact has been proved. The inference of proof of that fact could be drawn from the given objective, direct or circumstantial”. 17. To prove the passing of consideration from the plaintiff, the plaintiff made an attempt to examine the scribe of Ex.A1 pronote as PW2 and also examined one of the attestor in Ex.A1 pronote as PW3. PW2 and PW3 testified about the passing of consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff to the defendant under Ex.A1 pronote. It is not the case of the defendant that he is having enmity with PW2 and PW3, due to that they deposed falsehood against him. I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW2 and PW3. 18. In the case of Pottem Subbarayudu vs. Kothapalli Gangulu Naidu, 2000(5) ALT 759 , the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows: “There can be no straightjacket formula for the appreciation of oral evidence of the witnesses. The credibility of the witness is the paramount consideration for the Court. After passing the three legal tests viz, relevancy, admissibility, and competence of the witness, while considering the credibility of the witness, the Court has to consider various parameters so as to appreciate the oral evidence on the point by testing the same on the touch stone of two important yardsticks viz., the probabilities and surrounding circumstances among various other parameters. Even when no rebuttal is adduced by the adversary, the ocular testimony of the witnesses examined on the side of the party on whom the burden lies, cannot implicitly be relied upon without testing the same with reference to the probabilities and surrounding circumstances. The judgments of the Apex court in Govinda vs. Champa Bai ( AIR 1965 SC 354 ) and chaturbhuj Pande vs. Collector, Raigarh, would lend support to my above view”. The judgments of the Apex court in Govinda vs. Champa Bai ( AIR 1965 SC 354 ) and chaturbhuj Pande vs. Collector, Raigarh, would lend support to my above view”. In the case of Pratap Singh vs. Rajinder Singh and another, 1975 AIR(SC) 1045, the Apex Court held as follows: “….There is no presumption, either in this country or anywhere else, that a witness, deposing on oath in the witness box, is untruthful unless he is shown to be, indubitably, speaking the truth. On the other hand, the ordinary presumption is that a witness deposing solemnly on oath before a judicial tribunal is a witness of truth unless the contrary is shown. 11. It is not required by our law of evidence that a witness must be proved to be a perjurer before his evidence is discarded. It may be enough if his evidence appears to be quite improbable or to spring from such tainted or biased or dubious a source as to be unsafe to be acted upon without corroboration from evidence other than that of the witness himself….” In a civil case, the preponderance of probabilities constitutes a sufficient ground for decision if the facts and circumstances are such that no reasonable man would draw a particular inference from them or if the degree of probability in the case is such that as to include any hypothesis besides the one to be proved than the party who relies on a particular theory cannot be said to have been discharged the onus of proof of establishing that theory. But if the evidence is strongly prepondering in favour of any other two theories set up, the court is entitled to act on it. 19. The defendant received a legal notice under Ex.A2. Ex.A3 acknowledgment supports the same. The defendant, who received such notice before filing of the suit, did not even choose to send reply denying the borrowing and execution of Ex.A1 pronote. The defendant has not explained the reason for not responding the legal notice, this circumstance goes a long way in showing that the suit debt is true and that the defendant had chosen to come up with a belated and false theory both about the borrowing of amount and execution of Ex.A1 pronote. 20. The defendant has not explained the reason for not responding the legal notice, this circumstance goes a long way in showing that the suit debt is true and that the defendant had chosen to come up with a belated and false theory both about the borrowing of amount and execution of Ex.A1 pronote. 20. The defendant is unable show any reason or circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 to PW3 regarding the execution of suit pronote by the defendant and passing of consideration under Ex.A1. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 is consistent, cogent with regard to execution of suit pronote and so also passing of consideration under Ex.A1. Though PW1 to PW3 were subjected to cross examination, nothing was elicited from them to discredit their evidence. The plaintiff has no reason to fabricate the suit pronote. As stated supra, it is not the case of the defendant that he is having enmity with the plaintiff and so also PW2 and PW3. In the present case, the presumption has not been rebutted by the defendant even by the preponderance of probabilities. Ex.A1 pronote shows that the plaintiff lent the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant under Ex.A1 pronote. 21. The defendant failed to prove the contentions regarding nonpayment of consideration by leading cogent evidence. The defendant was not successful in showing the improbability of the consideration. The defense taken by the defendant is not substantiated. 22. After careful consideration, the trial Court had adequately appreciated the evidence, there is no reason for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court, I believe the findings arrived by the trial Court are correct and no justifiable reasons have been shown by the appellant/defendant for arriving at different conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the said decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and it requires no interference. 23. Point No.2: Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? In view of my findings on point No.1, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and the decree and judgment passed by the trail Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 24. Point No.2: Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? In view of my findings on point No.1, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and the decree and judgment passed by the trail Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 24. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the decree and Judgment dated 04.11.2003, in O.S.No.6 of 2000 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.