JUDGMENT : V. SRINIVAS, J. These regular appeals under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure are directed against the decrees and common judgment in O.S.Nos.14 of 2005 and 27 of 2003 dated 04.04.2006 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 2. The appellant herein, before the trial Court, is the plaintiff and he filed both the appeals. The respondent herein is the defendant in both the suits. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff instituted the suits against defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,59,333/- and Rs.10,11,656/- with interest and costs basing on the promissory notes dated 01.01.2001 and 01.12.2000 respectively said to be executed by the defendant. 4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings. 5. The case of the plaintiff/plaintiff in brief in the plaint in both the suits was as follows: (i) On 01.12.2000, defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum, which is the subject matter in O.S.No.27 of 2003. (ii) On 01.01.2001, defendant again borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum, which is the subject manner in O.S.No.14 of 2005. (iii) In spite of repeated demands and legal notices, the defendant failed to repay the said amounts. Hence, the suits. 6. The respondent/defendant denying the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement in both the suits as follows: (i) The plaintiff is the husband of his elder sister. During the year 1992, plaintiff migrated to Kurnool and stayed along with the defendant and both of them started a bread factory under the name and style of “S.V.Foods”. The said business stands in the name of defendant, actually, it was a partnership business and they carried the said business. (ii) Since both of them are family members, they were using the partnership amounts to meet their respective personal expenditure besides the family expenditure. The said business stands in the name of defendant, actually, it was a partnership business and they carried the said business. (ii) Since both of them are family members, they were using the partnership amounts to meet their respective personal expenditure besides the family expenditure. (iii) During the month of December 2000, plaintiff developed some selfish interest and requested the defendant to give in writing about the share in S.V.Foods. (iv) As M/s. S.V.Foods obtained a loan from A.P. State Finance Corporation, the rights in the partnership could not be transferred. But the defendant accepted to commit himself to recognize the rights of the plaintiff in the said business by executing a promissory note for Rs.6,00,000/- on 01.12.2000. (v) In spite of execution of promissory note conferring some right against the defendant, the plaintiff did not satisfy with the amount mentioned in the said promissory note and applied pressure on the defendant through his sister, who is wife of plaintiff. On that, he executed another promissory note dated 01.01.2001 for Rs.5,00,000/- . Both the promissory notes are executed in lieu of acknowledgment of the right of the plaintiff in the business only. The attestors found in the suit promissory notes signed it subsequently, just before filing the suit. (vi) In spite of execution of said promissory notes, the plaintiff did not satisfy and made pressure on the defendant to create right in the factory. Unable to bear the pressure, defendant executed a registered sale deed, dated 12.06.2001 transferring approximately 40% of the area in the name of the plaintiff showing boundaries of the factory in the sale deed. (vii) Then, the defendant requested the plaintiff to return the promissory notes, but he informed him that the same were misplaced and promised to return them as and when they are traced. Unfortunately, the wife of the plaintiff died suddenly due to blood cancer on 05.01.2003. (viii) After death of his wife, plaintiff, his children and defendant came to fresh understanding and executed a memorandum of understanding incorporating the conditions to be fulfilled among themselves regarding their business “S.V.Foods”. (ix) As per the said memorandum of understanding, the plaintiff has to take over the business and has to pay Rs.7,500/- per month to the defendant. Both parties agreed to confer 50% of the share in the properties of the business in the name of his (plaintiff) children. (ix) As per the said memorandum of understanding, the plaintiff has to take over the business and has to pay Rs.7,500/- per month to the defendant. Both parties agreed to confer 50% of the share in the properties of the business in the name of his (plaintiff) children. In the said memorandum of understanding, the plaintiff agreed to nullify the promissory notes, which were executed in his favour by the defendant. This recital was incorporated as they were executed the said promissory notes in-connection with the business of S.V.Foods and as the plaintiff informed that he had misplaced the same. (x) Now, the plaintiff intends to get wrongful gain by using the said promissory notes. The suit transaction relates to partnership business only. The suit is barred under Section 69(1) of the Partnership Act. If the suit is decreed, the memorandum of understanding will become unenforceable. 7. On these pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues and additional issue for trial in O.S.No.27 of 2003: “1. Whether the suit pronote is not supported by consideration as contended by the defendant? 2. Whether the Memorandum of understanding dated 12.04.2003 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff, if so, whether the suit pronote is deemed to have unenforceable in view of the Memorandum of understanding dated 12.04.2003? 3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 69(1) of Partnership Act? and 4. To what relief?” 8. On the above pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial in O.S.No.14 of 2005: “1. Whether the suit promissory note was executed under the circumstances stated in the Written Statement? 2.Whether the suit is barred under Section 69(1) of the Partnership Act? and 3.To what relief?” 9. On the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff before the trial Court, which is not objected by the learned counsel for the defendant, both the suits clubbed together for joint trial and the evidence recorded in O.S.No.27 of 2003 shall be treated as evidence in O.S.No.14 of 2005. 10. Thus, the lead suit is O.S.No.27 of 2003 for the other suit also. At the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff/plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.6 in support of his contentions. On behalf of the respondent/defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B.1 was exhibited. 11. 10. Thus, the lead suit is O.S.No.27 of 2003 for the other suit also. At the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff/plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.6 in support of his contentions. On behalf of the respondent/defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B.1 was exhibited. 11. Basing on the material and evidence, the trial Court came to conclusion that in view of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.04.2003, the suit promissory notes in both the suits have become unenforceable and, thus, dismissed the suits without costs. 12. It is against this decree and judgment, the plaintiff/plaintiff preferred this appeal. 13. Heard Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the plaintiff/plaintiff and Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the defendant /defendant. 14. Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the plaintiff/plaintiff submits that the burden only lies on defendant to disprove Exs.A.1 and A.2, which are fully supported by consideration; that there is no evidence put forth by the defendant that Exs.A.1 and A.2 were obtained by the plaintiff inconnection with the business under the name and style of ‘S.V.Foods’; that in the absence of evidence, the trial Court cannot be held that the plaintiff is partner of said business; that the defendant concocted the alleged defence taking advantage of Ex.B.1; that the trial Court relied on evidence of D.W.2, who is interested witness; that Ex.B.1 is not admissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and registration; that the trial Court erred in applying Section 10, 39 and 53 of Indian Contract Act; that the trial Court failed to appreciate the material on record in proper perspective, erroneously dismissed the suits and thereby prays to allow the appeals. 15. 15. Per contra, Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the defendant /defendant submits that the trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances, material on record rightly dismissed the suits; that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are issued in lieu of acknowledgment of the right of the plaintiff in business only; that there is no consideration passed under said promissory notes; that in view of Ex.A5/B.1, the plaintiff agreed to nullify the said promissory notes, but he did not do so to get wrongful gain; that D.W.2, who is son of plaintiff, categorically deposed about the execution of Ex.A.5/B.1 among plaintiff, defendant and children of plaintiff; that there is no material on record to say the plaintiff proved that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are passed through consideration; that there are no grounds to interfere with the common judgment of the trial Court and that the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 16. It is against this backdrop, the following point, which arise for determination need consideration now: Whether the dismissal decrees in O.S.Nos.27 of 2003 and 14 of 2005 are liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent and to what relief? 17. POINT: Since both the plaintiff and defendant are one and the same, the defense taken by the parties in both the suits is also one and the same, even the trial Court clubbed the suits in O.S.No.27 of 2003 and O.S.No.14 of 2005, joint trial was conducted by taking the suit in O.S.No.27 of 2003 as a lead suit and passed a common judgment, thereby, this Court also decided both the appeals by way of this common judgment. 18. In-order to ascertain the above said point, the following points has to be determined by considering the contentions of both parties: i).Whether the suit promissory notes dated 01.12.2000 and 01.01.2001 are not supported by consideration as contented by the defendant/respondent? ii).Whether the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.04.2003 in between the plaintiff and defendant is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff/appellant, if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the suit relief as prayed for? 19. The foremost defense of the plaintiff is that both Exs.A.1 and A.2 are supported by consideration in the light of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and trial Court ought to have raised a presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the plaintiff. 20. 19. The foremost defense of the plaintiff is that both Exs.A.1 and A.2 are supported by consideration in the light of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and trial Court ought to have raised a presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the plaintiff. 20. The second defense taken by the plaintiff is that since the defendant taken a plea that promissory notes covered under Exs.A.1 and A.2 are not supported by consideration, the burden is heavily lies on the defendant, but he miserably failed to discharge the said burden. 21. The other ground taken by the plaintiff is that absolutely no legal evidence produced by the defendant to deny the claim of the plaintiff. 22. Thus, this Court perused the evidence and documents placed on record before the trial Court. The undisputed facts are that plaintiff is the husband of elder sister of the defendant. Plaintiff begotten two sons by name Pavan and Rohan through the elder sister of the defendant and she died, on 05.01.2003, due to blood cancer. 23. It is also an undisputed fact that plaintiff is resident of Pulivendula and migrated to Kurnool during the year, 1992 with an intention to start business with the defendant and stayed along with him. More so, they stayed in one building in the up and down stairs. It is also an undisputed fact that business stands in the name of the defendant under the name and style of ‘S.V. Foods and S.V. Seeds’. 24. It is the specific contention of the defendant that while business was smoothly going on, both were using the partnership amounts to meet their respective personal expenditure, besides the family expenditure. Defendant further contended that during the year 2000, plaintiff developed some selfish interest and requested him to give in writing about the share in S.V. Foods. By that time, as M/s. S.V.Foods obtained loans from A.P. State Finance Corporation, he could not transfer the right. In that situation, defendant accepted to commit himself to recognize the right of the plaintiff as a partner in S.V. Foods by executing a promissory note for Rs.6,00,000/- on 01.12.2000. 25. By that time, as M/s. S.V.Foods obtained loans from A.P. State Finance Corporation, he could not transfer the right. In that situation, defendant accepted to commit himself to recognize the right of the plaintiff as a partner in S.V. Foods by executing a promissory note for Rs.6,00,000/- on 01.12.2000. 25. Even thereafter also, in spite of execution of promissory note by conferring some right against the defendant, plaintiff did not satisfy with the said promissory note, applied pressure on the defendant through his wife, who is none other than the sister of the defendant, and because of the relationship and affinity towards his sister, he readily executed another promissory note dated 01.01.2001 for Rs.5,00,000/-. Both the promissory notes were executed in lieu of acknowledgement of the right of the plaintiff in the business. 26. Defendant further contended in his defense that even after execution of the promissory notes, plaintiff did not satisfy with the same and coerced the defendant to create right over the factory. For which, unable to bear the pressure from him through his sister, he accepted to execute a registered sale deed transferring 40% of the share in the factory, in the shape of sale deed. Accordingly, defendant executed a registered sale deed dated 12.06.2001 transferring approximately 40% of the area in the name of the plaintiff showing boundaries of the factory in the sale deed marked as Ex.A.4 by the plaintiff himself. Thereafter, when demanded the plaintiff to return the said promissory notes, he stated that they were misplaced and unable to locate them and as and when they traced, he would return the same. 27. It is further case of the defendant that unfortunately wife of plaintiff died, on 05.01.2003, due to blood cancer and thereafter there was an agreement taken place between the plaintiff and defendant and that they agreed to transfer rights in favour of children of the plaintiff by name Pavan and Rohan as plaintiff wanted to remarry. Initially that agreement went back by the plaintiff, again came with a fresh understanding, and executed a memorandum of understanding incorporating the conditions to be fulfilled among themselves (plaintiff and defendant) regarding their business S.V. Foods. As per the said memorandum of understanding, the plaintiff has to take over the business and has to pay Rs.7,500/- per month to the defendant. As per the said memorandum of understanding, the plaintiff has to take over the business and has to pay Rs.7,500/- per month to the defendant. Both parties agreed to confer 50% of the share in the properties of the business in name of children of plaintiff. In the said memorandum of understanding, it was agreed by the plaintiff that he has to nullify the promissory notes also. The same is also mentioned in the said memorandum of understanding. 28. In the circumstances, the defendant contended that plaintiff with a view to get wrongful gain make use of promissory notes said to be executed by the defendant and filed the present suits for recovery of money as if consideration was passed thereunder. The suit transaction relates to partnership business, plaintiff and defendant are partners and promissory notes were executed in-connection with the said business. Therefore, a partner cannot file a suit with regard to business transaction, except to seek rendering of the accounts and dissolution of the partnership. More so, when there is a memorandum of understanding regarding the business, the plaintiff instead of invoking the conditions in the said memorandum of understanding seeking relief of decrees on the promissory notes without any consideration does not arise. 29. Admittedly, plaintiff, who entered into the witness box as P.W.1, in the chief examination itself stated that in the year 1992, he started finance business, later other business-like Rig and Lorry at Kurnool. The defendant, who is also residing at Kurnool, started a proprietary concern for manufacture of Bread under the name and style of ‘S.V.Foods’ and said factory started in the year, 1993 and after few years M/s. S.V.Seeds also commenced by the defendant. 30. Admittedly, both Exs.A.1 and A.2 were in the handwriting of the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. But the defendant contended that those promissory notes were given as an understanding between plaintiff and defendant in connection with the said business and no consideration was passed thereon. 31. On the other hand, plaintiff stated that the contentions of the defendant are all false and both the promissory notes were passed under consideration, executed the same and both were fully supported by cash consideration. 32. 31. On the other hand, plaintiff stated that the contentions of the defendant are all false and both the promissory notes were passed under consideration, executed the same and both were fully supported by cash consideration. 32. It is also stated by P.W.1 in the chief examination itself that defendant wanted some more amount for his business and began to pressurize him through his wife, who is none other than the sister of defendant, lent the amount under the promissory notes. In the immovable property owned and possessed by the defendant at Kurnool to an extent of Ac.0.39 ½ cents, in which defendant constructed and running a Bread Factory, offered to sell a portion of the land i.e. Ac.0.5.12 cents and accordingly plaintiff paid consideration and got registered a sale deed under Ex.A.4 in favour of himself and his wife Ramadevi on 06.12.2001. 33. Curiously, in the same chief examination affidavit of P.W.1, he specially stated that though defendant executed Ex.A.4 sale deed, it is recited in the said sale deed that possession was handed over to him and his wife, but, it was actually only in the possession of defendant. 34. The suit begins with a cause that defendant approached the plaintiff for a loan for the purpose of his business and himself gave Exs.A.1 and A.2 promissory notes under consideration. Thereafter, the plaintiff stated that, for the money required to his business purpose, defendant executed a sale deed also under the cover of Ex.A.4 in favour of plaintiff and his wife. 35. On the other hand, defendant categorically contended that all these acts are conveniently tailored by the plaintiff to suit his case. In fact, no consideration under Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.4 was passed and Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.4 are part and parcel of their business transaction and after death of plaintiff’s wife disputes arose between them. At that time, there was an initial agreement to transfer their rights to the children of the plaintiff, but the same was not materialized. Thereafter, they (plaintiff and defendant along with children of plaintiff) entered into a memorandum of understanding on 12.04.2003 under Ex.A.5/B.1. 36. As per the version of defendant, under Ex.A.5/B.1 memorandum of understanding the plaintiff has to take possession of the property and has to pay Rs.7,500/- per month to the defendant. Thereafter, they (plaintiff and defendant along with children of plaintiff) entered into a memorandum of understanding on 12.04.2003 under Ex.A.5/B.1. 36. As per the version of defendant, under Ex.A.5/B.1 memorandum of understanding the plaintiff has to take possession of the property and has to pay Rs.7,500/- per month to the defendant. Instead of taking over the possession of the property as per said memorandum of understanding, dated 12.04.2003, he filed simple suit for recovery of money in O.S.No.27 of 2003 by suppressing the facts and thereafter immediately defendant come up with a defense that on 12.04.2003, there was a memorandum of understanding and copy of the same was filed into the Court along with written statement in the month of January, 2004 itself. 37. While matter stood thus, plaintiff filed another suit in O.S.No.8 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool without referring the said memorandum of understanding and since connected suit in O.S.No.27 of 2003 is pending, the said suit in O.S.No.8 of 2004 was transferred to the Court of learned IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool and renumbered as O.S.No.14 of 2005. 38. In both the suits, defense taken by the defendant is one and the same and as on 12.04.2003 there was a memorandum of understanding between the plaintiff and defendant and as per the Clause I to VII under Ex.A.5/B.1, the defendant agreed to give 50% share in open place as well S.V. Foods (Nilagiri Bread Factory) and also in S.V. Seeds situated in survey Number 497/A3A of Kallur of Kurnool District in the name of the sons of plaintiff and also in another clause, it is agreed that all the promissory notes, which were in possession of the plaintiff should be null and void after registration of the said property and clause No.VI shows that 50% of the properties should be registered in the name of sons of plaintiff within fifteen (15) days from the date of memorandum of understanding and clause No.7 is that the properties will be managed by the plaintiff, who is natural guardian of his children. 39. Admittedly, the plaintiff himself filed Ex.A.5 and its stamp paper stands in the name of the plaintiff alone. On the other hand, Ex.B.1 is the copy of the contents of Ex.A.5, but the stamp paper is in the name of the defendant. 39. Admittedly, the plaintiff himself filed Ex.A.5 and its stamp paper stands in the name of the plaintiff alone. On the other hand, Ex.B.1 is the copy of the contents of Ex.A.5, but the stamp paper is in the name of the defendant. Since plaintiff himself filed Ex.A.5 into the Court and stamp paper stands in the name of the plaintiff, which was marked through P.W.1, the burden shifts on the plaintiff to prove this document is not a valid one, in view of specific defense of the defendant. 40. One more interesting aspect, which culled out in the evidence placed on record before the trial Court is that defendant got examined the son of the plaintiff as D.W.2 and he categorically deposed that plaintiff and defendant together started bread factory under the name and style of S.V. Foods and both the plaintiff and defendant using the partnership amount to meet their family expenditure as well personal expenditure. He further testified that plaintiff requested the defendant a share in the S.V. Foods, for which defendant could not transfer the share as firm is indebted to A.P. Finance Corporation. So that, defendant executed Exs.A.1 and A.2 without any consideration and thereafter the beneficiary, who is plaintiff, under Ex.A.5/B.1 has not taken any steps for enforcing Ex.A.5/B.1. Instead of the same, he filed the present suits in O.S.Nos.27 of 2003 and 14 of 2005 to get wrongful gain. 41. Before proceeding further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ponugupati Subbarao v. Sikhakollu Pullarao, 1999(2 LS AP 51== 1999(3) ALD 446 held that “When the initial burden is discharged by the plaintiff by showing that the document was executed, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the document is forged. In cases of failure of discharge of burden by the defendant, the suit has to be decreed” 42. In the legal back drop of the case, when plaintiff himself introduced Ex.A.5, the burden obviously shifted on the plaintiff to prove the contents therein are false, consideration under Exs.A.1 and A.2 was passed to the defendant and he also stated that even though defendant executed Ex.A.4 sale deed in favour of plaintiff and his wife, he did not deliver the possessions of land under Ex.A.4. So, reading all together, the burden is heavily on the plaintiff to show that Exs.A.1 and A.2 were passed for consideration. 43. So, reading all together, the burden is heavily on the plaintiff to show that Exs.A.1 and A.2 were passed for consideration. 43. In normal circumstances, when defendant takes a plea that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are not supported by consideration, the burden is heavily on the defendant to prove that that they are not supported by consideration. But, in this peculiar case, defendant took a plea that in a partnership firm when plaintiff insisted for a document, he gave Exs.A.1 and A.2 as a token of recognition to the partner, no consideration was passed under Exs.A.1 and A.2 and that even he executed Ex.A.4 to recognize the plaintiff as partner and in Ex.A.4 one of the boundaries shown as S.V. Foods and plaintiff himself introduced Ex.A.5 memorandum of understanding for the business transaction. In the said memorandum of understanding, it is categorically mentioned that plaintiff agreed to nullify Exs.A.1 and A.2. In view of the said peculiar circumstances, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove Exs.A.1 and A.2 were passed for consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- on 01.12.200 and 01.01.2002 respectively. 44. No doubt, plaintiff assertively stated that he paid consideration to the defendant on the respective dates under Exs.A.1 and A.2. But, in the chief examination, he agreed the various terms of memorandum of understanding under Ex.A.5 in the interest of his children. When plaintiff himself agreed to the terms of memorandum of understanding under Ex.A.5, then it is the burden on the plaintiff as to why he brought out promissory notes instead of enforcing Ex.A.5 memorandum of understanding by him, which became unexplained story. 45. Moreover, when he obtained the signatures of his children including D.W.2 in Ex.A.5/B.1 at Kurnool alone and he did not come to Hyderabad, if that is true, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that himself and defendant alone signed on memorandum of understanding as well attestors of the said memorandum of understanding has to be examined by the plaintiff to show that D.W.2 and his brother did not sign on Ex.A.5 memorandum of understanding. 46. The plaintiff further contended in his chief examination that after execution of memorandum of understanding, defendant refused to handover possession of the factory by stating that his brothers and family members are against for handing over the factory to him. If that is so, the plaintiff would have taken legal steps. 46. The plaintiff further contended in his chief examination that after execution of memorandum of understanding, defendant refused to handover possession of the factory by stating that his brothers and family members are against for handing over the factory to him. If that is so, the plaintiff would have taken legal steps. But plaintiff did not take any such legal steps. 47. On the other hand, he deposed during the cross examination that his counsel intimated him that memorandum of understanding under the cover of Ex.A.5/B.1 is not in accordance with law and not a valid document. In the chief examination, P.W.1 stated that there was a memorandum of understanding between him and defendant and it was signed by them along with his (plaintiff) children at Kurnool and then plaintiff has to show when the other witnesses signed on Ex.A.5/B.1. So, the plaintiff is not speaking truth with regard to Ex.A.5, which is counter part of Ex.B.1, which is more particularly with preponderance of probabilities that Ex.A.5 and counter part of Ex.B.1 was executed by both plaintiff and defendant along with children of plaintiff, which is effected into and one of the clause in the said document is that promissory notes under the cover of Exs.A.1 and A.2 shall be nullified. 48. One more interesting aspect at this point of time in the evidence of plaintiff that since the defendant intimated him that his brother and family members are against to handover the factory to him, the memorandum of understanding in Ex.A.5 not effected and remained in paper. If that is so, he ought to have taken steps to enforce the same as per the law, but he did not do so. 49. One more aspect, which could be find from the testimony of P.W.1 in the chief examination that as per Ex.A.5 it was agreed that promissory notes executed by the defendant in his favour would not be enforceable only after registration of the property. Thus, the plaintiff has to seek for enforcement of registration of the property in favour of his sons. But, he did not do so and reasons were not explained by him. 50. Thus, the plaintiff has to seek for enforcement of registration of the property in favour of his sons. But, he did not do so and reasons were not explained by him. 50. On the other hand, he stated that registration of the property could not be done due to the refusal made by the defendant is not acceptable in the eye of law, as plaintiff did not issue any notice to the defendant demanding for enforcement of Ex.A.5, instead of bringing out the promissory notes, which were in his hands, as if they were passed for consideration. 51. One more interesting statement made by P.W.1 in his evidence that he entered into memorandum of understanding for the interest of his sons, but defendant influenced one of his sons with false promise, gifts and made him act in defiant manner against him. Under these circumstances, due to breach of memorandum of understanding, he filed the present suits. If really plaintiff entered into memorandum of understanding in the interest of his sons, he would have pressed the memorandum of understanding against second son being minor by the date of Ex.A.5, but he did not do so. 52. On perusal of Ex.A.5 and counter part of Ex.B.1, the condition for nullification of the promissory notes under Exs.A.1 and A.2 by transferring 50% of the properties of the S.V. Foods in the name of the sons of plaintiff and the 40% of the properties of S.V. Foods was already transferred in the name of the plaintiff and his wife. If the plaintiff insisted for enforcement of Ex.A.5 remaining 10% will be transferred in the name of son of plaintiff. Then, only remaining 10% to be transferred by the defendant. For such 10%, instead of enforcing Ex.A.5, he came to the Court by filing these suits for recovery of money under Exs.A.1 and A.2 without any consideration. 53. From the beginning defendant contended that as he could not transfer the share in S.V. Foods or S.V. Seeds, he executed Exs.A.1 and A.2 promissory notes and in view of the disputes he agreed to register 40% of the share in the name of the plaintiff and his wife by way of sale deed covered under Ex.A.4 and executed the same and 50% will be executed in the name of sons of plaintiff and remaining 10% to be taken by the plaintiff. Instead of enforcing execution of Ex.A.5, plaintiff comes with a plea as if promissory notes were executed by the defendant for consideration. 54. When plaintiff was in the witness box, he consistently deposed that he does not have any share in S.V. Foods and he purchased the site under Ex.A.4 from the defendant. If that is true, how he could say that possession under Ex.A.4 was not delivered to him become unexplained from the side of the plaintiff. It is a fact found from the record that the land covered under Ex.A.4 sale deed there is an office of S.V. Foods. On perusal of Ex.A.4 one of the boundary is S.V. Foods and S.V. foods is in the land covered under Ex.A.4. 55. Moreover, plaintiff deposed during cross examination that he did not take steps for recovery of land covered under Ex.A.4 till date of his examination, which again goes to show that plaintiff is not speaking truth regarding his case much less regarding advance amount and consideration for purchase of the property under Ex.A.4. But, he consistently admitted during cross examination that defendant executed the document conferring 40% rights in S.V. Foods and also conferring rights in godown which is located in the area covered under Ex.A.4 sale deed. Thus, it goes to the root of the case of the plaintiff that memorandum of understanding is unexecutable and not a valid document as stated by his counsel and he could execute the same as defendant refused, are all created and concocted story. 56. When a question was made to P.W.1 regarding 40% of right in S.V. Foods conferring to him, his lawyer told him that agreement is not a valid and he did not get any right under the agreement, which does mean to say, if he enforce Ex.A.5 he will not get anything. Therefore, he intended to enforce Exs.A.1 and A.2 without any consideration. 57. Again come back to Ex.A.5, which is also speaking about Ex.A.4, which shows that 40% share was transferred in the name of the plaintiff. In that regard when a question was put to him, he deposed that he does not know the market value of the site covered under Ex.A.4 sale deed and whether it is two (2) lakhs per cent or not. Which again goes to show that P.W.1 is not speaking truth regarding nature of dispute between the parties. 58. In that regard when a question was put to him, he deposed that he does not know the market value of the site covered under Ex.A.4 sale deed and whether it is two (2) lakhs per cent or not. Which again goes to show that P.W.1 is not speaking truth regarding nature of dispute between the parties. 58. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention, one of the interesting statements made by P.W.1 during cross examination as follows: “I demanded the defendant to perform his part of contract under Ex.B.1 memorandum of understanding. I do not issue legal notice as my Advocate stated that Ex.B.1 is not a valid document”. 59. For the above, there is no material to accept his statement. Because, when a question was put regarding Ex.B.1, he categorically deposed that he does not know whether Ex.B.1 is a valid document or not. By cumulative reading of the above answers from P.W.1, goes to show that plaintiff could not prove his case. 60. Regarding Exs.A.1 and A.2 are concerned; it is the testimony of P.W.1 that they are executed in his house. When Ex.A.1 executed, his wife, one Narasimha Rao and Madhusudhana Reddy were present. When Ex.A.2 was executed, his wife, one Narasimha Rao and Gajendra Reddy were present. Regarding consideration under Exs.A.1 and A.2, he stated that he paid cash. 61. No doubt, plaintiff examined one V.K.Narasimha Rao said to be attestor in both the promissory notes as P.W.2. He stated in chief examination that in his presence the consideration under Exs.A.1 and A.2 was passed to the defendant. Admittedly, on perusal of cross examination of P.W.2, he is totally stranger to the family of plaintiff and defendant. P.W.2 categorically admitted during cross examination that he got acquaintance with the plaintiff just six (6) months prior to execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note and the admission made by P.W.2 during cross examination that at the time of execution of Ex.A.1, he went to the house of Narasimha Reddy/plaintiff and did not state why he did not went to the house of plaintiff at the time of execution of Ex.A.2, whereas he deposed that at the time of execution of Ex.A.2, he was called by the plaintiff. 62. When justifying the veracity of P.W.2 during the cross examination, it is elicited that he was residing at Sareen Nagar, Kurnool. 62. When justifying the veracity of P.W.2 during the cross examination, it is elicited that he was residing at Sareen Nagar, Kurnool. He does not know the name of landlord of the house bearing No.13/37/7, in which he is residing at Raghavendra Nagar, Kurnool and it belongs to Muslims. He categorically admitted that he does not know any particulars of Madhusudhana Reddy, who is first attestor of Ex.A.1 and first attestor of Ex.A.2 Ganjendra Reddy and he seen them on the date of execution of respective promissory notes at first time and he also categorically testified that he did not observe how many stamps affixed in Exs.A.1 and A.2, but he deposed his house number, which is said to be mentioned in Exs.A.1 and A.2. 63. In this regard, the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 is very much relevant and D.W.1 is consistently stand on his defense. D.W.2 son of plaintiff deposed against his father and stated in favour of defendant. The own son of plaintiff, who is examined as D.W.2, deposed against his father/plaintiff that P.W.1 is not come forward to enforce the document under Ex.A.5/B.1. So, all these facts go to show that there is any amount of doubt regarding consideration passed under Exs.A.1 and A.2. 64. In the common judgment of the trial Court, referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasinath (dead) through L.Rs. v. Jaganath, (2003) 8 SCC 740 , wherein at paragraph No.17 held as follows: “17. From the judgments of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and the High Court it is clear that there was no consistency so far as the claim regarding the adoption is concerned particularly as to who and at what point of time it was made. The High Court has taken great pains to extract the relevant variations to indicate as to how it cut at the very root of plaintiff's claim. As noted by the Privy Council in Siddiqui Mohammad Shah v. Mst. Saran and Ors. ( AIR 1930 PC 57 ), and M/s Trojan and Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chetiar ( AIR 1953 SC 235 ), when the evidence is not in line with the pleadings and is at variance with it and as in this case in virtual self-contradiction, adverse inference has to be drawn and the evidence cannot be looked into or relied upon. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chetiar ( AIR 1953 SC 235 ), when the evidence is not in line with the pleadings and is at variance with it and as in this case in virtual self-contradiction, adverse inference has to be drawn and the evidence cannot be looked into or relied upon. Additionally, as rightly submitted the conclusion whether there was adoption is essentially one of fact merely depending upon pure appreciation of evidence on record. This position has been stated in several decisions of this Court; e.g., Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan (dead) by Lrs. ( 2000 (8) SCC 99 ) and Raushan Devi v. Ramji Sah and Ors. (2002 (10) SCC 205). Consequently, no exception could be taken to the well- merited findings concurrently recorded by the courts below, with which the High Court also rightly declined to interfere on the facts and circumstances of this case.” 65. It is settled law that when the evidence is not in line with the pleadings and is at variance with it, it cannot be looked into, because the parties cannot travel beyond pleadings and even in this case also virtually there is self-contradiction, itself goes to show that adverse inference can be drawn, as per the above referred judgment of the Apex Court, the evidence cannot be looked into or relied upon. 66. Additionally, one of the fact that mere depending on purely appreciation of evidence on record, this Court has clearly discussed above that there is a variance to the pleadings and evidence and defendant is able to establish that there is a memorandum of understanding between him and plaintiff and plaintiff also admitted the said fact by producing Ex.A.5 and for the better reasons known to him, he did not state in the pleadings and come up with a different story by producing Ex.A.5, which all goes to show that the consideration as stated by the plaintiff under Exs.A.1 and A.2 is not passed and an adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff and no presumption can be drawn in favour of the plaintiff under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Furthermore, it is well established by the defendant that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are part and parcel in business transaction between plaintiff and defendant and no consideration was passed under the said promissory notes. 67. Furthermore, it is well established by the defendant that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are part and parcel in business transaction between plaintiff and defendant and no consideration was passed under the said promissory notes. 67. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court rightly appreciated the material on record and categorically found that in view of Ex.A.5/B.1 memorandum of understating dated 12.04.2003, the suit promissory notes become unenforceable and plaintiff is at liberty to enforce the contract covered under Ex.A.5/B1. Thereby, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the well-articulated common judgment and decrees of the trial Court. Therefore, there are no merits in these appeals and as such the same are liable to be dismissed. 68. In the result, the appeals in A.S.Nos.336 and 432 of 2006 are dismissed by confirming the decrees and common judgment dated 04.04.2006 in O.S.Nos.14 of 2005 and 27 of 2003 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool. There shall be no order as to costs. 69. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 70. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.