JUDGMENT : This 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 02.06.2008, in O.S. No.244 of 2003 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondent herein is the defendant in the said Suit. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,07,100/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 25.03.2000 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,95,000/- 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.244 of 2003, are as under: The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.03.2000 to meet her family expenses 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 08.10.2001. The defendant received the same and gave a reply with false averments and failed to repay the amount. 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: - The plaintiff is a stranger to the defendant and she never borrowed any amount from her and she being an employee drawing hand some salary and she has no necessity to borrow money from the plaintiff. She further contend that she worked at various places and she was working at Thukivakam from 09.08.2000 and was residing in house bearing D.No.19-9-29/B, Lakshmipuram, Tiruchanoor road, Tirupati. Prior to that, she worked at Pattiputtur of Vadamalapet from 28.11.1994 to 25.05.2000. ii) The defendant further contend that her husband conducted private chits in Tirumala during 1996 and one Lakshmi, resident of Tirumala was a subscriber of chits. Prior to that, she worked at Pattiputtur of Vadamalapet from 28.11.1994 to 25.05.2000. ii) The defendant further contend that her husband conducted private chits in Tirumala during 1996 and one Lakshmi, resident of Tirumala was a subscriber of chits. She got the chit worth of Rs.30,000/- in the auction dated 10.12.1996 when she agreed to forego Rs.6,000/-, but the husband of the defendant could not arrange the prize money, thereby the said Lakshmi has obtained two pronotes from the defendant, who is an employee towards the security of said prize amount. Out of the said two pronotes only one pronote was filled up and the other one is a blank pronote. The husband of defendant went to Gulf country and paid the prize money to said Lakshmi, but she failed to return the pronotes. The defendant has contend that she has got two letters written by said Lakshmi to prove the above chit transaction and as the said Lakshmi failed to return the pronotes, the defendant got issued a legal notice to said Lakshmi and Kumar on 29.09.2003. Even though both of them are staying in the same house, the notice addressed to the said Kumar was served and Lakshmi Could get the notice returned unserved, therefore, the defendant filed a private complaint before II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati which was referred to police and after completing the investigation the police have filed charge sheet against said Lakshmi and Kumar. While sending them for judicial custody, the police have mentioned that the said Kumar delivered blank pronote to the plaintiff herein. iii) The defendant further contend that on the date of alleged execution of pronote, she was working at Boyalagada, Pattiputtur and not residing at 19.9.29/B, Lakshmipuram and she was transferred from Boyalagadda to Pallasamudram on 25.07.2000. She used to stay at the place where she was working, thereby the address shown in the suit pronote is in correct and she need not pay the suit amount 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 is true, valid and binding on the defendant? (ii) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant? (ii) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B21 were marked. 8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 02.06.2008, 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 Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff and Sri Manikanta, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Hemachandra, learned counsel for respondent/defendant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the defendant admitted in the written statement that one Lakshmi obtained blank signed pronote from her and the said Lakshmi might have been fabricated the said empty pronote and might have filed the present suit. He would further contend that the respondent/defendant has taken inconsistent pleas during the course of trial. He would further contend that instead of decreeing the suit, the trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal may be allowed. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit by holding that the suit pronote is not at all true, valid and binding on the defendant and therefore the appeal may be dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. 12. 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 suit pronote is not true, valid and not binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? If so, to what extent? 13. Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the suit pronote is not true, valid and not binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? If so, to what extent? 13. Point Nos.1 and 2: The defendant has taken a specific plea in the written statement and also deposed as DW1 that she did not execute any pronote in favour of the plaintiff, she never borrowed any amount as mentioned in the plaint and she is a government employee and there is no need to her to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff. She further stated in the written statement itself that after issuance of reply notice, she enquired about the financial capacity of the plaintiff and came to know that she is not having any capacity to pay such huge amount, on that ground alone the suit is liable to be dismissed. An over all reading of the written statement and the evidence of DW1 goes to show that she is not admitted her signatures on Ex.A1 pronote, that the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish the suit pronote transaction. 14. The plaintiff herself examined as PW1. She stated in her evidence affidavit in chief that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- on 25.03.2000 for her family expenses and executed a demand promissory note on the same day promising to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on demand or order. She further stated that inspite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay any amount and postponed the same on one ground or other and that she got issued a legal notice to the defendant through her counsel. 15. The plaintiff also examined one of the attestor in the promissory note as PW2. PW2 stated in his evidence affidavit, in chief, that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.03.2000 for her family expenses and executed a pronote on the same day promising to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on demand or order. PW2 stated in his evidence affidavit, in chief, that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.03.2000 for her family expenses and executed a pronote on the same day promising to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on demand or order. He further stated in his evidence affidavit that he stood as one of the attestor to the said pronote and in his presence the defendant executed a pronote and after passing of consideration from the plaintiff under pronote, the defendant signed on the pronote in his presence and the pronote was scribed by one J.V.Ramana of Tirumala and another attestor was also present at that time. 16. The defendant is disputing the execution of Ex.A1 pronote, therefore, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that Ex.A1 pronote is genuine, true, valid and binding on the defendant. The same has to be proved by producing cogent and reliable evidence. As seen from the evidence of PW1, in cross examination, the plaintiff admits that she has no prior acquaintance with the attestors and scribe of Ex.A1, whereas PW2, who is one of the attestor in Ex.A1, has admitted in cross examination that he saw the defendant on the date of pronote only. Plaintiff admits in her evidence in cross examination that the defendant brought the attestors and scribe of pronote. PW2 admits that the defendant did not call the attestors and scribe of Ex.A1. PW2 further admits that the plaintiff called him to attest in Ex.A1 pronote and the plaintiff brought another attestor and scribe. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the evidence of PW1 is not at all corroborated by the evidence of PW2. Another admission made by PW2 is that one rupee revenue stamps of three in number were affixed on Ex.A1, whereas on Ex.A1 pronote there are four revenue stamps. Another important circumstance to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff is that PW2 admits in cross examination that the other attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 are alive. As stated supra, there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, but the plaintiff did not venture to examine another attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 even though they are alive. 17. As stated supra, there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, but the plaintiff did not venture to examine another attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 even though they are alive. 17. In the written statement, the defendant has taken a specific plea that the plaintiff is a stranger to her and on enquiry, she came to know that the plaintiff is not having any capacity to lend such huge amount. The case of the plaintiff is that on 25.03.2000 the defendant borrowed Rs.2,95,000/- from the plaintiff. In those days in the year 2001 certainly an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- is a huge amount. PW1 admits in cross examination that she is a housewife, as per the material on record, the husband of the plaintiff is an attender in T.T.D. The defendant is an employee. Further more, the plaintiff has not filed any document to show that she is having capacity of lending Rs.2,95,000/- on the date of Ex.A1. PW1 admits in cross examination that she has not filed any document to show that she is having cash of Rs.2,95,000/- on the date of Ex.A1. Another important circumstance to disbelieve the financial capacity of the plaintiff is that PW2 admits in cross examination that the plaintiff is not having any property and the defendant is working as A.N.M. at Tirumala on the date of Ex.A1. The plaintiff is unable to explain her source of income to lend the huge amount of Rs.2,95,000/-, in those days, in the year 2001 i.e., at about 23 years ago. Another important circumstance to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff is that as per the own admissions of the plaintiff, herself and the defendant are residing at Tirumala, in the same line. Ex.A1 recitals goes to show that the defendant is resident of Lakshmipuram at Tirupati. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not at all corroborated by the evidence of PW2. Further more, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the plaintiff is not having sufficient capacity to lend huge amount of Rs.2,95,000/- in those days, a way back in the year 2001. 18. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not at all corroborated by the evidence of PW2. Further more, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the plaintiff is not having sufficient capacity to lend huge amount of Rs.2,95,000/- in those days, a way back in the year 2001. 18. As per Ex.B1 certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.461 of 2002, the husband of PW1 is working as attender in T.T.D. and plaintiff is only a housewife and she used to conduct chit business and she also filed some suits and obtained money decrees against several individuals and a criminal case also filed against her and 2 others. As per her own admissions of PW1, she was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months in C.C.No.469 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati and one Jaya Lakshmamma filed a suit against her husband and she further admits that she is also third accused in C.C.No.22 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati and she also obtained money decree in O.S.No.194 of 2002 and O.S.198 of 2002 against one K.Munikrishna Reddy and she also obtained money decree in O.S.No.1416 of 2005 against one Ademma. 19. The defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff, examined herself as DW1. She stated in her evidence affidavit in chief that she did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and she denied her signature on Ex.A1 pronote. In cross examination, the defendant specifically stated that the signature on Ex.A1 pronote not belongs to her. The defendant stated in her evidence that her husband conducted a private chits in Tirumala in the year 1996 and in that transaction one Lakshmi is also a subscriber for Rs.30,000/- chit and she was a successful bidder on 10.12.1996 after foregoing the dividend of Rs.6,000/-. She further admits as her husband is not in a position to pay the said amount, the said Lakshmi obtained two pronotes, one is filled up and another is blank pronote from her, since she is an employee. 20. The material on record proves that to disproves the case of the plaintiff, the defendant also relied on the evidence of DW2. 20. The material on record proves that to disproves the case of the plaintiff, the defendant also relied on the evidence of DW2. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the defendant is an employee on the date of Ex.A1 pronote and the plaintiff is a housewife and husband of the plaintiff is an attender i.e., small employee in T.T.D. and the alleged amount lent by the plaintiff is Rs.2,95,000/- in those days a way back in the year 2001 it is a very huge amount. As stated supra, a specific plea is taken by the defendant in the written statement that she is not having any acquaintance with the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not having any capacity to lend huge money of Rs.2,95,000/-. As stated supra, there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the evidence of PW1 is not at all corroborated by the evidence of PW2. On the other hand, the defendant has taken a serious objection that the signature on the promissory note is not at all belongs to her and the plaintiff is not having sufficient capacity to lend the huge money of Rs.2,95,000/- in those days in the year 2001 and to disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant relied on the evidence of DW1 and DW2. As stated supra, in view of the discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 did not inspire confidence and it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. 21. In Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company vs. Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35 , the Apex Court held as follows: “….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….” The standard of proof evidentially is principles of preponderance of probabilities. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn from the material on record and by reference to the circumstances upon which reliance is placed. 22. The defendant has discharged her initial burden by providing plausible evidence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn from the material on record and by reference to the circumstances upon which reliance is placed. 22. The defendant has discharged her initial burden by providing plausible evidence. As stated supra, there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The evidence of PW1 is not at all corroborated by the evidence of PW2. Therefore, the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act disappears and becomes functus officio and the evidential burden shifts to the plaintiff, who also has the legal burden arising out of the pleadings to prove the consideration. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has not discharged the legal burden, as such, she cannot again rely on the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff regarding the payment of consideration at the time of execution of Ex.A1 pronote cannot be accepted and it raises a doubt about the genuineness of the pronote and passing of consideration. 23. On careful perusal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence. There is no reason for this Court to arrive at different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court. The findings arrived at by the trial Court are correct. The decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. Accordingly, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of defendant by holding that the suit promissory note is not true, valid and not binding on the defendant, the said finding given by the trial Court holds good. 24. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed without costs, confirming the decree and Judgment dated 02.06.2008, in O.S.No.244 of 2003 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.