JUDGMENT : The appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.5 of 2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,59,750/- with costs and also with future interest. 4. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows: The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of business agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 11-01-2002 at Kotabommali village. In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the amount due under the suit promissory note and postponed the repayment. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 19-11-2004 demanding him to pay the amount with interest, which was returned with an endorsement that the defendant was found absent. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of amount. 5. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows : The defendant denied the plaint allegations. It is contended that the transaction is not correct and the plaintiff is not known to him. He never executed the suit promissory note and he has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time. He had no necessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff or from anybody. He contended that the attestors and scribe are henchmen of the plaintiff and they might have colluded together and fabricated the suit promissory note with a view to harass him defendant. Since the suit promissory note is denied and unenforceable, the suit is liable to be dismissed. He prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court: (1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration ? and (2) To what relief ? 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and also examined the attestor and scribe of the promissory note as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Ex.A-1 to A-4. and (2) To what relief ? 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and also examined the attestor and scribe of the promissory note as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Ex.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant is examined as D.W.1 and no documentary evidence is adduced on his behalf. 8. After completion of trial and hearing arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.4,59,750/- with costs and also with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization. 9. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed the present appeal questioning the finding given by the trial Court. 10. Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 11. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the respondent/plaintiff has no capacity to lend money and Ex.A-1 suit promissory note is brought into existence. She would further contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper manner and came to wrong conclusion and decreed the suit. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent would contend that on appreciation of the entire material on record, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the trial Court. 13. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff proved the execution of suit promissory note and the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ? (2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? and (3) To what extent ? 14. Point No.1:- Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff proved the execution of suit promissory note and the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ? In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined the 1st attestor in Ex.A-1 as P.W.2. His evidence clearly proves about the borrowing of Rs.3,00,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff and so also the execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note dated 11-01-2002 in favour of the plaintiff. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined the 1st attestor in Ex.A-1 as P.W.2. His evidence clearly proves about the borrowing of Rs.3,00,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff and so also the execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note dated 11-01-2002 in favour of the plaintiff. There was a clear admission by the defendant in his evidence in cross-examination itself that he has no enmity with P.W.2 and so also another attestor and so also the scribe. It is not the case of the defendant that he is having enmity with P.W.2, due to that he deposed falsehood against the defendant. To discharge his liability, furthermore he examined the scribe of Ex.A-1 promissory note as P.W.3. His evidence also clearly proves about the borrowing of Rs.3,00,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff and so also the execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note dated 11-01-2002 in favour of the plaintiff. It is not the case of the defendant that he is having enmity with P.W.3, due to that he deposed falsehood against the defendant. In cross-examination, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is not at all disturbed on the material aspects of the case. The evidence of P.W.1 is well corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. 15. The defendant, to prove his defence, examined himself as D.W.1. He deposed in his evidence that he never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the alleged promissory note is a forged document and no consideration was passed under Ex.A-1 promissory note. In cross-examination when elicited, he clearly admits that he has no acquaintance with the attestors and scribe of Ex.A-1 and he does not have enmity with them. There was a clear admission in his evidence in cross-examination itself that a suit in O.S.No.8 of 2004 was filed in Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Srikakulam, for recovery of money against him and the said suit was decreed for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and in the said case, the plaintiff is the State Bank of Hyderabad and final decree in the said suit is also pending before the competent Court. Another admission made by him in his evidence in cross-examination is that O.S.No.18 of 2002 was filed for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- by Lakshmi Manikya Chits and Finance against him on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Srikakulam and the same is pending. Another admission made by him in his evidence in cross-examination is that O.S.No.18 of 2002 was filed for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- by Lakshmi Manikya Chits and Finance against him on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Srikakulam and the same is pending. Another admission made by him in his evidence in cross-examination is that another suit in O.S.No.130 of 2004 is also filed against him on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Srikakulam, for recovery of Rs.25,000/- and it is decreed. The above admissions of D.W.1 clearly go to show that he is in the habit of borrowing monies. As stated supra, in cross- examination nothing was elicited from P.Ws.1 to 3 to discredit the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3. 16. In civil cases, rival contentions and rival evidence will have to be considered, assessed, evaluated and weighed to conclude whether the burden on the plaintiff has been discharged. In the case of R. Puthunainar Alhithan v. P.H. Pandian, 1996 (3) SCC 624 , the apex Court held as follows: “An inference from the proved facts must be so probable that if the Court believes, from the proved facts, that the facts do exist, it must be held that the fact has been proved. The inference of proof of that fact could be drawn from the given objective, direct or circumstantial”. 17. To prove the passing of consideration from the plaintiff, the plaintiff made an attempt to examine the scribe of Ex.A-1 promissory note as P.W.3 and also examined one of the attestors in Ex.A-1 promissory note as P.W.2. P.Ws.2 and 3 testified about the passing of consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff to the defendant under Ex.A-1 promissory note. It is not the case of the defendant that he is having enmity with P.Ws.2 and 3, due to that they deposed falsehood against him. I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.1 is the plaintiff. His evidence also supports the case of plaintiff. 18. In the case of Pottem Subbarayudu v. Kothapalli Gangulu Naidu, 2000(5) ALT 759 , the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad 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. 18. In the case of Pottem Subbarayudu v. Kothapalli Gangulu Naidu, 2000(5) ALT 759 , the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad 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, would lend support to my above view”. 19. In the case of Pratap Singh v. Rajinder Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1045 , the apex Court held as follows: “… … … There is no presumption, either in this country or anywhere else, that a witness, deposing on oath in the witness box, is untruthful unless he is shown to be, indubitably, speaking the truth. On the other hand, the ordinary presumption is that a witness deposing solemnly on oath before a judicial tribunal is a witness of truth unless the contrary is shown. 11. It is not required by our law of evidence that a witness must be proved to be a perjurer before his evidence is discarded. It may be enough if his evidence appears to be quite improbable or to spring from such tainted or biased or dubious a source as to be unsafe to be acted upon without corroboration from evidence other than that of the witness himself. … … …” 20. It may be enough if his evidence appears to be quite improbable or to spring from such tainted or biased or dubious a source as to be unsafe to be acted upon without corroboration from evidence other than that of the witness himself. … … …” 20. In a civil case, the preponderance of probabilities constitutes a sufficient ground for decision if the facts and circumstances are such that no reasonable man would draw a particular inference from them or if the degree of probability in the case is such that as to include any hypothesis besides the one to be proved than the party who relies on a particular theory cannot be said to have been discharged the onus of proof of establishing that theory. But if the evidence is strongly prepondering in favour of any other two theories set up, the Court is entitled to act on it. 21. The defendant is unable to show any reason or circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 regarding the execution of suit promissory note by the defendant and passing of consideration under Ex.A-1. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent, cogent with regard to execution of suit promissory note and so also passing of consideration under Ex.A-1. Though P.Ws.1 to 3 were subjected to crossexamination, nothing was elicited from them to discredit their evidence. The plaintiff has no reason to fabricate the suit promissory note. As stated supra, it is not the case of the defendant that he is having enmity with the plaintiff and so also P.Ws.2 and 3. In the present case, the presumption has not been rebutted by the defendant even by the preponderance of probabilities. Ex.A-1 promissory note shows that the plaintiff lent the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant under Ex.A-1 promissory note. 22. The defendant failed to prove the contentions regarding non-payment of consideration by leading cogent evidence. The defendant was not successful in showing the improbability of the consideration. The defence taken by the defendant is not substantiated. 23. After careful consideration, the trial Court had adequately appreciated the evidence and there is no reason for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court. The defendant was not successful in showing the improbability of the consideration. The defence taken by the defendant is not substantiated. 23. After careful consideration, the trial Court had adequately appreciated the evidence and there is no reason for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court. I believe the findings arrived at by the trial Court are correct and no justifiable reasons have been shown by the appellant/defendant for arriving at a different conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and it requires no interference. 24. Point No.2: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? In view of my finding on point No.1, I do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the judgment and decree passed by the trail Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 25. Point No.3:- To what extent ? In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30-3-2007, in O.S.No.5 of 2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.