JUDGMENT : Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/defendants challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 28.01.2008, in O.S. No.262 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The first Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit. Sole respondent/ plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal, his legal representatives are brought on record as respondent Nos.2 to 7. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,32,394/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 05.05.1996executed by the second defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,50,000/- 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.262 of 2002, are as under: The first defendant is a firm doing business in boiled rice mill situated at Guntur Road, Ongole, second defendant is the managing partner of the first defendant. The second defendant, being the managing partner of the first defendant, borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.05.1996for business purpose and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. On demand, the second defendant as a managing partner of the first defendant firm paid an amount of Rs.100/- on 04.05.1999 and endorsed the same on the back of promissory note with his own hand writing. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants are diverting the funds for other purposes and thus avoiding to pay the amount to the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, defendants did not choose to pay any amount and have been postponing the same on one pretext or other. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 5. The defendants filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: - The wife of second defendant i.e., Kusuma Kumari having 3 elder brothers and 1 elder sister and all of them constituted a Hindu joint family, the plaintiff is a junior paternal uncle of the said Kusuma Kumari. 5. The defendants filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: - The wife of second defendant i.e., Kusuma Kumari having 3 elder brothers and 1 elder sister and all of them constituted a Hindu joint family, the plaintiff is a junior paternal uncle of the said Kusuma Kumari. The wife of second defendant along with her sister filed a suit for partition. Her brothers and the plaintiff forced her and the second defendant to withdraw the suit, but they refused to do so, as such they developed grudge and fabricated a pronote and filed this false case with a view to bound the second defendant and his wife towards them. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues : (i) Whether the second defendant borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- and executed suit promissory note on 05.05.1996? (ii) Whether the payments shown in the promissory note are made by the second defendant and whether the suit claim is in time? (iii) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X7 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 to DW3 were examined and Ex.C1 was marked. 8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 28.01.2008, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for appellants/defendants and Ms. Gnanusha, learned counsel, on behalf of Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the suit pronote is created on account of the disputes between the wife of second defendant and plaintiff, who is none other than her junior paternal uncle. He would further contend that the Court below erred that the suit Ex.A1 pronote is the genuine by relying upon the opinion of the hand writing expert. He would further contend that Ex.A1 pronote and Ex.A2 part payment endorsement on Ex.A1 pronote were created by the plaintiff. He would further contend that the Court below erred that the suit Ex.A1 pronote is the genuine by relying upon the opinion of the hand writing expert. He would further contend that Ex.A1 pronote and Ex.A2 part payment endorsement on Ex.A1 pronote were created by the plaintiff. He would further contend that Ex.A2 part payment endorsement is created by the plaintiff with the help of attestor to save the limitation in filing the suit. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge. 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 plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A1 pronote on receipt of consideration of amount by the defendants and also Ex.A2 part payment endorsement? 2. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? If so, to what extent? 13. Point Nos.1and 2: The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant is a firm doing business in boiled rice mill situated at Ongole and second defendant is the managing partner of the first defendant, for business purpose borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a suit pronote on 05.05.1996 at Ongole in favour of the plaintiff and promised to repay the same with interest. The plaintiff further pleaded that on demand, the second defendant, as a managing partner of the first defendant firm, paid an amount of Rs.100/- on 04.05.1999 and endorsed the same on the back of the promissory note with his own hand writing and subsequently the defendants failed to discharge the suit debt and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 14. The case of the appellants is that Ex.A1 is a rank forged and Ex.A2 part payment endorsement is also fabricated one and not genuine. 14. The case of the appellants is that Ex.A1 is a rank forged and Ex.A2 part payment endorsement is also fabricated one and not genuine. Since there is a plea of forgery, denial of execution of Ex.A1 pronote and Ex.A2 part payment endorsement, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A1 pronote and passing of consideration under Ex.A1 pronote and part payment under Ex.A2 part payment endorsement. 15. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1. He reiterated his stand as per his respective pleadings. He testified that the second defendant, representing the first defendant firm, borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- on 05.05.1996 and executed Ex.A1 pronote and subsequently on demand, the second defendant on behalf of first defendant paid part payment of Rs.100/- on 04.05.1999 and also made an endorsement under Ex.A2 to that effect. In cross examination when elicited PW1 fairly admitted about the pendency of the suit for partition and also filing of another suit against the son of second defendant. PW1 admits in his evidence in cross examination that he filed a suit in O.S.No.169 of 2004 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s court, Ongole against one Kishore Kumar and the same was decreed and the said Kishore Kumar is the son of the second defendant and he further admits the wife of the second defendant Kusuma Kumari along with her sister Padmavathi filed a suit for partition of their joint family properties in O.S.No.95 of 1994 against their brothers and the said suit is still pending in District Court. It was suggested to PW1 in cross examination by the learned counsel for defendants that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are forged documents, the said suggestion was denied by PW1. 16. It is trite beyond the pale controversy that the burden rests on the plaintiff’s shoulders to prove the claim satisfactorily. Where both the 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 for decree as prayed for. 17. Where both the 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 for decree as prayed for. 17. As seen from the record the plaintiff in order to prove his case examined the first attestor in the suit pronote as PW2 and second attestor in the suit pronote as PW3. PW2 is also sole attestor in Ex.A2 part payment endorsement. The scribe of the suit pronote died and the son of the scribe of the suit pronote is examined as PW4 to prove the signature on Ex.A1 pronote belongs to the scribe of Ex.A1 pronote. PW2 and PW3 deposed in their evidence about the borrowing of the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- by the second defendant, representing the first defendant, on 05.05.1996 and also execution of Ex.A1 pronote in favour of the plaintiff. They have clearly stated in their evidence that they are the attestors in the Ex.A1 pronote. Furthermore, PW2 deposed in his evidence about the part payment of Rs.100/- made by the defendants under Ex.A2 endorsement and he is also the sole attestor to Ex.A2 part payment endorsement. It was suggested to PW2 in cross examination by the learned counsel for defendants that the present suit is filed by the plaintiff only due to the family disputes in between both of them. The said suggestion is denied by PW2. It was suggested to PW2 by the learned counsel for defendants that the second defendant is the husband of his sister. The said suggestion is admitted by PW2. He also further admits that the plaintiff and his father are brothers. The above admissions clearly go to show that PW2 is a common relative to the both the parties to the suit. In cross examination to PW3 by the learned counsel for defendants, no enmity was attributed to PW3 to depose falsehood against the defendants. It was simply suggested to PW3 in cross examination by the learned counsel for defendants that he colluded with the plaintiff and they created the pronote. The said suggestion was denied by PW3. In cross examination of PW2 and PW3 by the learned counsel for defendants, their evidence is not shattered on the material aspects of the case. It was simply suggested to PW3 in cross examination by the learned counsel for defendants that he colluded with the plaintiff and they created the pronote. The said suggestion was denied by PW3. In cross examination of PW2 and PW3 by the learned counsel for defendants, their evidence is not shattered on the material aspects of the case. Furthermore, the evidence of PW4 goes to show that the scribe is his father and he knows the writing of his father and he well acquainted with the hand writing of his father. 18. Apart from the above evidence of PW1 to PW4, the plaintiff also relied on the evidence of DW2, who is hand writing expert, who examined the Ex.A1 promissory note and Ex.A2 part payment endorsement. As per his evidence he has been working as Assistant Director in Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and he is having more than 20 years’ experience in the field of document examination and he further deposed that their department has received a requisition from the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole along with certain documents for examination and opinion and the same were entrusted to him for examination and opinion. He further deposed that the disputed signatures in pronote dated 05.05.1996 and endorsement dated 04.05.1999 marked by the Court as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. As per his evidence he marked the disputed signatures in the above exhibits as Q6 to Q8 and the standard signatures purported to be of second defendant in a Vakalat as S-25 and in the written statement as S-26 to S-29 and on a sheet of paper as S-30 to S-39. He further deposed that after careful examination, the question and standard signatures agree in all the writing characteristics. He further deposed that as per his opinion the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked S-1 to S-39 also wrote the red enclosed signatures marked Q-6 to Q-8. No doubt, the opinion of hand writing expert is not a basis to come to conclusion that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are genuine. As stated supra, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 clearly proves about the execution of Ex.A1 pronote and also part payment endorsement under Ex.A2. The evidence of DW2 also corroborates the evidence of PW1 to PW3. No doubt, the opinion of hand writing expert is not a basis to come to conclusion that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are genuine. As stated supra, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 clearly proves about the execution of Ex.A1 pronote and also part payment endorsement under Ex.A2. The evidence of DW2 also corroborates the evidence of PW1 to PW3. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 is well corroborated by the evidence of DW2, who is a hand writing expert in Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory. It is not the case of the defendants that they are having enmity with DW2 and that he deposed falsehood against them. 19. The second defendant reiterated his defense in his chief examination affidavit as DW1. In cross examination, he admits that on earlier occasion, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.118 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole and in that suit his defense was forgery and on full-fledged trial the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and they preferred an appeal against the said decree and the same was dismissed by the District Court and Execution Petition was also filed over the decree passed in the said suit. He further admits that Devathu Srinivasulu filed another pronote suit against him and his defense in the said suit is he discharged the said debt and he also admits that one Bachala Balaiah filed another money suit against him and the same was decreed on which he preferred an appeal. The above admissions of DW1 clearly go to show that he is in the habit of borrowing money and execution of pronotes and taking a plea of forgery in all the suits. 20. Another witness of defendants i.e., DW3 deposed in his evidence that he is working as Income Tax Inspector. Ex.X1 to Ex.X7 were marked through DW3. In cross examination he admits that in Ex.X2 and Ex.X6, the plaintiff is one of the creditor and nature of the loan was not mentioned in Ex.X2 and Ex.X6. He further admits Ex.X2 and Ex.X6 are the self-statement of the first defendant and no reference was made about the day book and ledger in Ex.X2 and Ex.X6. He also further admits in Ex.X2 there is no specific certificate that the ledger folio numbers which were given for comparison with original. He further admits Ex.X2 and Ex.X6 are the self-statement of the first defendant and no reference was made about the day book and ledger in Ex.X2 and Ex.X6. He also further admits in Ex.X2 there is no specific certificate that the ledger folio numbers which were given for comparison with original. Another important admission made by DW3 in his evidence is that they will scrutiny the assesse record basing on the creditors list and there is a possibility of secreting some creditors without furnishing them in the list. Ex.X7 is the interest account for the year 1999-2000. In the said Ex.X7 the second defendant signed as a managing partner of the first defendant firm. Here the suit transaction is relating to the year 1999. 21. The learned counsel for respondents placed a reliance of High Court of Bombay, (Nagapur Division Bench) in Prakash Madhukararao Desai Vs. Dattatraya Sheshrao Desai, 2023 (5) MhLJ 709 . In that decision, it was held as follows : “….a transaction not reflected in the books of accounts and/or Income Tax returns of the holder of the cheque in due course can be permitted to be enforced by instituting proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 in view of the presumption under Section 139 of the Act of 1881 that such cheque was issued by the drawer for the discharge of any debt or other liability, execution of the cheque being admitted. Violation of Sections 269-SS and/or Section 271-AAD of the Act of 1961 would not render the transaction unenforceable under Section 138 of the Act of 1881”. In the case on hand, though the Income Tax returns were marked as Ex.X1 to Ex.X7, the Income Tax Inspector DW3 clearly admits in his evidence in cross examination that there is a possibility of secreting some creditors without furnishing them in the list by the debtors. He further admits that they will scrutiny the assesse records basing on the creditors list and there is a possibility of screening some creditors by the debtors. In a civil suit, 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. 22. In the case of M. Narsinga Rao Vs. In a civil suit, 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. 22. In the case of M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 1 SCC 691 , the Apex Court held as follows: The word “proof” need be understood in the sense in which it is defined in the Evidence Act because proof depends upon the admissibility of evidence. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. This is the definition given for the word “proved” in the Evidence Act. What is required is production of such materials on which the court can reasonably act to reach the supposition that a fact exists. Proof of the fact depends upon the degree of probability of its having existed. The standard required for reaching the supposition is that of a prudent man acting in any important matter concerning him. Fletcher Moulton L.J. in Hawkins v. Powells Tillery Steam Coal Co. Ltd. [(1911) 1 KB 988 : 1911 WN 53] observed like this: “Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible; it must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a particular conclusion.” The said observation has stood the test of time and can now be followed as the standard of proof. In reaching the conclusion the court can use the process of inferences to be drawn from facts produced or proved. Such inferences are akin to presumptions in law. Law gives absolute discretion to the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court may have regard to common course of natural events, human conduct, public or private business vis-à-vis the facts of the particular case. The discretion is clearly envisaged in Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 23. In that process the court may have regard to common course of natural events, human conduct, public or private business vis-à-vis the facts of the particular case. The discretion is clearly envisaged in Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 23. In the case of R. Puthunainar Alhithan and others 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 facts, direct or circumstantial. 24. In the case of Pottem Subbarayudu and another vs. Kothapalli Gangulu Naidu and others, 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 v. Champa Bai, AIR 1965 SC 354 and Chaturbhuj Pande v. Collector, Raigarh, AIR 1969 SC 255 , would lend support to my above view. Let us therefore see the voluminous oral evidence: on the side of the defendants and that of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the side of the plaintiffs: how far and to what extent stands the judicial scrutiny. The trial Court accepted the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and DW2 regarding the execution of Ex.A1 pronote and also part payment endorsement under Ex.A2, I am of the considered view that undoubtedly, when a question of fact the decision depends upon the appreciation of oral evidence in the case. The trial Court accepted the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and DW2 regarding the execution of Ex.A1 pronote and also part payment endorsement under Ex.A2, I am of the considered view that undoubtedly, when a question of fact the decision depends upon the appreciation of oral evidence in the case. The appellate Court has to bear in mind that it does not have the advantage that the trial Judge had in having the witness before him and observing how they deposed in Court. A finding that a witness is telling the truth is of the greatest value when made by a judge who saw all the witnesses or atleast the important ones on each side. The legal position is thus clear that ordinarily weight should be attached to the trial judge’s opinion regarding the credibility of witness, and the appellate Court should not lightly brush aside the opinion of the trial Judge about the opinion of credibility of witness. 25. The contention of the second defendant is that he did not made any part payment and he did not execute the suit pronote and Ex.A2 part payment endorsement is created to save the limitation. Section 18 of the New Limitation Act (corresponding to Section 19 of old Act) deals with the effect of acknowledgment in writing, the relevant portion of which read thus: Effect of acknowledgement in writing: 1. When before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, afresh period of limitation shall be completed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. 26. Thus, it is clear as per Section 18 of Limitation Act, the limitation of years starts from the date of signing the acknowledgment, a fresh period of limitation shall be completed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. As the part payment amount was paid to be made within 3 years, it is not open to the defendants to contend that the suit claim is not within the limitation period, it is subject to establishing part payment endorsement. As the part payment amount was paid to be made within 3 years, it is not open to the defendants to contend that the suit claim is not within the limitation period, it is subject to establishing part payment endorsement. As stated supra, the evidence of PW1 coupled with the evidence of PW2 clearly goes to show about the part payment of Rs.100/- made by the second defendant under Ex.A2 part payment endorsement. To rebut the said evidence, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence to show that Ex.A1 pronote and Ex.A2 part payment endorsement are forged documents. Here, in the case on hand, Ex.A1 suit pronote is dated 05.05.1996 and Ex.A2 part payment endorsement is dated 04.05.1999. The learned counsel for respondents would contend that since in view of the summer vacation in the month of May 2002, the suit is filed on the very re-opening day of the Civil Courts i.e., on 01.06.2002 and that the suit is filed within a period of limitation. The decree passed by the trial Court clearly goes to show that the suit is filed by the plaintiff on 01.06.2002, for the aforesaid reasons, the suit is filed within a period of limitation. 27. The learned counsel for appellants relied on the judgment in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and others, 2022 SCC Online Guj 1643. In that case, the High Court of Gujarat held as follows : “118. 27. The learned counsel for appellants relied on the judgment in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and others, 2022 SCC Online Guj 1643. In that case, the High Court of Gujarat held as follows : “118. Presumption as to negotiable instruments.- Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:— (a) of consideration—that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; (b) as to date—that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date; (c) as to time of acceptance—that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity; (d) as to time of transfer—that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity; (e) as to order of indorsements—that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon; (f) as to stamps— that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped; (g) that holder is a holder in due course—that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course; Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence of fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.” 28. The learned counsel for appellants relied on a decision of Apex Court in Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 , in that decision it was held as follows : “17. Under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court is obliged to presume, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also a settled position that the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the court to believe the non-existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal.” 29. The learned counsel for appellants relied on a decision of Apex Court in Roop Kumar vs. Mohan Thedani, AIR 2003 SC 2418 , in that decision it was held as follows : Section 91 relates to evidence of terms of contract, grants and other disposition of properties reduced to form of document. This section merely forbids proving the contents of a writing otherwise than by writing itself; it is covered by the ordinary rule of law of evidence, applicable not merely to solemn writings of the sort named but to others known some times as the “best evidence rule”. It is in reality declaring a doctrine of the substantive law, namely, in the case of a written contract, that of all proceedings and contemporaneous oral expressions of the thing are merged in the writing or displaced by it. In the case on hand, the material on record clearly proves that the Ex.A1 pronote is supported by consideration and to discharge his liability the second defendant represented by the first defendant made part payment of Rs.100/- under Ex.A2 endorsement and the suit is also filed within the period of limitation. To rebut the said evidence, the defendants did not adduce any evidence to prove that the suit pronote is a forged document and not supported by consideration, the defendants also failed to prove that Ex.A2 part payment endorsement is created by the plaintiff to save the limitation. 30. The learned counsel for appellants placed another reliance in the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2019) 18 SCC 106 , the facts in the cited decision relates to the Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act filed in a criminal case before the learned Magistrate, whereas the subject matter of the present case is civil suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount under suit pronote. 31. In civil cases, the preponderance of probability 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 decree of possibility in the case is such that as to include any hypothesis besides the one to be proved then the party who relies on a particular theory cannot be said to have discharged the onus of proof of establishing that theory. But, if the evidence is strongly prepondering in favour of any of the two theories set up, the Court is entitled to act on it. 32. As stated supra, the plaintiff discharged his burden to prove Ex.A1 pronote and also part payment endorsement under Ex.A2. The defendants failed to prove their contentions regarding non payment of consideration by leading cogent evidence, the defendants were not successful in showing the improbability of the consideration. Therefore, the defense taken by the defendants is not sustainable under law. 33. After careful consideration the trial Court adequately appreciated the evidence and there is no reason for this Court to arrive at different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court. I am of the considered view that the findings arrived at by the trial Court are correct and no justifiable reasons have been shown by the appellants/ defendants for arriving at different conclusions. Therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law. 34. Accordingly the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the trial Court is justified in holding that the second defendant representing the first defendant executed the suit pronote and also received the amount under Ex.A1 pronote and also made part payment under Ex.A2 endorsement. In view of the aforesaid reasons the view taken by the trial Court does not call for any interference and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The impugned decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is holds good. 35. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed without costs, by confirming the decree and Judgment dated 28.01.2008, in O.S.No.262 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.