JUDGMENT : V.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 Appellant/defendant challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 06.04.2000, in O.S. No.680 of 1989 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.76,000/- being the balance of principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 20.11.1986 executed by the defendant in favour of one Ganta Udaya Lakshmi for Rs.40,000/- 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.680 of 1989, are as under: The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from one Ganta Udaya Lakshmi of Gudavalli on 20.11.1986 for her business purpose and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of Ganta Udaya Lakshmi agreeing to repay the same, on demand, with interest at 24% per annum. But inspite of several demands made by Ganta Udaya Lakshmi, the defendant did not choose to pay any amount and the said Udaya Lakshmi transferred the suit pronote on 16.11.1989 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also tried to contact the defendant, but she was out of station, 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 defendant never borrowed any amount from Ganta Udayalakshmi and the suit pronote is rank forged one, in fact, the defendant did not know the said Udaya Lakshmi and the suit pronote with the forged signature of the defendant was brought into existence by the plaintiff and his men for wrongful gain 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 forged by the plaintiff? (ii) Whether the defendant is a small farmer? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to suit amount? (iv) Whether the defendant borrowed the suit amount for business purpose? (v) To what relief? 7. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the suit pronote is forged by the plaintiff? (ii) Whether the defendant is a small farmer? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to suit amount? (iv) Whether the defendant borrowed the suit amount for business purpose? (v) 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 and Ex.A2 were marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW1 was examined, but no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defendant. 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 06.04.2000, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for appellant and Ms.V.Bindu, learned counsel, representing Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 10. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following point would arise for determination: Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit and whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? 11. Point : The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from one Ganta Udaya Lakshmi of Gudavalli on 20.11.1986 and executed Ex.A2 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to her or her order at Guntur and subsequently the said Udaya Lakshmi transferred the promissory note in the name of the plaintiff for collection and later on the defendant failed to discharge the suit debt and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 12. The suit is based on a promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the transferor of the plaintiff by name Udaya Lakshmi, therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove Ex.A2 promissory note, since the defendant has taken a plea of forgery in the written statement itself. To substantiate the case of the respondent/plaintiff, the respondent relied on the evidence of PW1. To substantiate the case of the respondent/plaintiff, the respondent relied on the evidence of PW1. PW1 deposed in his evidence about the borrowing of amount of Rs.40,000/- from Ganta Udaya Lakshmi by the defendant for her financial business in the year 1986 and also execution of Ex.A2 suit promissory note. He also further deposed in his evidence that he himself scribed the Ex.A2 promissory note and consideration of Rs.40,000/- was passed to the defendant in his presence. The evidence of PW1 goes to show that the entire consideration of Rs.40,000/- was passed from Ganta Udaya Lakshmi to the defendant and he is the scribe of Ex.A2 promissory note. He was cross examined by the learned counsel for defendant before the trial Court. In cross examination, nothing was elicited from PW1 to discredit the testimony of PW1. In cross examination, the evidence of PW1 is not at all shattered on the material aspects of the case. 13. The plaintiff, to prove the transfer endorsement and also passing consideration under Ex.A2 promissory note, examined the husband of the plaintiff’s transferor as PW2. As per the evidence of PW2, the scribe of Ex.A2 is his grand son and Ex.A2 is the promissory note and the defendant signed on Ex.A2 in his presence and he is the scribe of Ex.A1 transfer endorsement and Ex.A1 was executed at Guntur. The evidence of PW2 goes to show that the entire consideration was passed from his wife Udaya Lakshmi to the defendant. 14. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, about the borrowing of amount of Rs.40,000/- and execution of Ex.A2 promissory note and also about the transfer of Ex.A2 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by the transferor, PW1 and PW2 were examined. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 supports the case of the plaintiff about the passing of consideration and execution of Ex.A2 promissory note. In cross examination, nothing was elicited from PW1 and PW2 to discredit their testimony. It is not the case of the appellant that the appellant is having enmity with PW1, due to that PW1 deposed falsehood against the defendant. It is also not the case of the appellant that she is having enmity with PW2, due to that PW2 deposed falsehood against the defendant. 15. It is not the case of the appellant that the appellant is having enmity with PW1, due to that PW1 deposed falsehood against the defendant. It is also not the case of the appellant that she is having enmity with PW2, due to that PW2 deposed falsehood against the defendant. 15. The defense put forth by the defendant in the written statement is that she never borrowed any amount from Udaya Lakshmi much less the amount of Rs.40,000/-. The defense taken by the appellant in the written statement is that the suit pronote is fabricated with forged signature of the defendant and the same is brought into existence by the respondent and his maternal uncle Rajendra Prasad and their partner Gudavalli Venkata Rao and his son Kishore, who were having inimical terms with the appellant since 1984 onwards, but to prove the said defense, no evidence was adduced by the appellant before the Court below, except relying on her self testimony as DW1. Another defense put forth by the appellant in the written statement is that Udaya Lakshmi has no capacity to lend a sum of Rs.40,000/- either on 20.11.1986 or any other day. The husband of the transferor of the promissory note was examined as PW2. It was not at all suggested to PW2 in cross examination by the learned counsel for defendant that they are not having any sufficient capacity to lend Rs.40,000/- to the defendant. 16. Another defense put forth by the appellant in the written statement itself is that after the death of the defendant’s father, disputes arose with regard to the terraced building and Ac.3.00 cents of landed property between the defendant and her sister on one hand and the brother’s wife and son-in-law, who are living with his wife in the building on the other hand as the defendant and her sister are claiming share in the brother’s property. The appellant also pleaded that she has strong reason to believe that at the instance of Kishore and his father Venkata Rao and for further benefit the suit pronote was forged as it was executed by the appellant in favour of plaintiff’s transferor. As stated supra, to prove the defense, except relying on self testimony of the defendant as DW1, no other evidence is adduced by the defendant. As stated supra, to prove the defense, except relying on self testimony of the defendant as DW1, no other evidence is adduced by the defendant. In cross examination, DW1 admits that as far as co-sharers are concerned there is no dispute regarding the share which was decided by her father and each sharer would get his income over the said land and she has no objection in respect of sale of share of other sharers and after filing of the suit Ac.2.00 cents of land was sold away by her sister-in-law and she did not issue any notice claiming her share out of Ac.3.00 cents of land. She also further admits that even after filing of the written statement in the suit Ac.2.00 cents of land was sold away by her sister-in-law. As noticed supra, as far as co-sharers are concerned, the appellant herself admitted before the Court below that there is no dispute regarding the share which was decided by her father. It is an admitted fact by the appellant that she did not issue any notice for claiming share out of the said property and she has also not filed any suit for claiming share in her parents property. As notice supra, no cases are pending between her and her brother’s family. Therefore, the defense taken by the appellant in the written statement before the Court below is not at all proved by the appellant. 17. The learned counsel for appellant placed a reliance in G.Vasu vs. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri, AIR 1987 A.P. 139 , in that case, the three Judge Bench of composite High Court of A.P. held as follows: Once the defendant shows either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or by use of other presumptions of law or fact that the promissory note is not supported by consideration in the manner stated in the promissory note or in the manner stated in the suit notice or in the pleading the evidential burden shifts to the plaintiff and the legal burden of the plaintiff is revived i.e., to prove that the promissory note is supported by consideration and at that stage, the presumption of law covered by Section 118 “disappears” and no longer subsists. This is because the presumption under Section 118 raised by the statute initially in favour of the plaintiff steps, as it were into the witness box and acts as a substitute for the plaintiffs evidence. Once such rebuttal evidence is given by the defendant to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court acting on a preponderance of probabilities and not requiring an absolute proof of a negative i.e., absence of all conceivable forms of consideration, the effect of the presumption shifting the initial evidential burden to the defendant “disappears”. In the case on hand, the plaintiff discharged his burden and proved Ex.A2 promissory note and also passing of consideration of Rs.40,000/- under Ex.A2 and also Ex.A1 transfer endorsement. It is well settled that the evidence required to shift the burden need not necessarily be direct evidence i.e., oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by the opposite party: it may comprise circumstantial evidence or presumption of law or fact, but the appellant failed to discharge her burden in the case on hand. 18. The strong objection taken by the appellant before the Court below is that the suit promissory note is a forged document. As noticed supra, except relying on her self-testimony as DW1, no other evidence is adduced by the appellant. Section 73 of Evidence Act expressly enable the Court to compare the disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether the writing is that of a person by whom it purports to have been written. Both parties have not opted for comparison of the signatures by the hand writing expert, this Court views that when the party who relies on the disputed document expresses an apprehension that the document of origin or the farthest document shall not be suitable for making comparison, the admitted or proved contemporary signature alone should be used for such comparison. Thus, it is clear that if the person, who relied on the disputed signature believes that the admitted signature is not disguised, it is good enough for comparison. In fact, the trial Court has taken a pain to compare the signature on the promissory note with that of the signature of the defendant available on admitted documents viz., Vakalat, written statement such as deposition of the defendant and came to conclusion that the signature on the promissory note as executant appears to be the defendant. In fact, the trial Court has taken a pain to compare the signature on the promissory note with that of the signature of the defendant available on admitted documents viz., Vakalat, written statement such as deposition of the defendant and came to conclusion that the signature on the promissory note as executant appears to be the defendant. In fact, there is no express provision in the code of Civil Procedure Code, which takes away from an appellate Court, in cases, in which the code provides for an appeal from the original decree, the power to review and evaluate the evidence of the witnesses independently of the conclusion reached by the trial Court regarding the credibility of the witness. 19. The Apex Court in Murari Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 531 observed that “the duty of the Court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is not an expert”. It is thus clear from the above observation of the Apex Court that under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, the Court can compare the disputed and admitted hand writings or signature to come to its own conclusion. However, the provisions of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act have been interpreted by various courts as to how the signatures or hand writings are to be compared when there is no assistance from the expert. As noticed supra, the trial Court has taken pains to compare the signature of the borrower on the original pronote with that of the admitted signatures of the defendant available on Vakalat, Written Statement and Deposition of the DW1 and came to conclusion that the signature of executant on Ex.A2 pronote and the signature of the defendant on Vakalat, written statement and deposition of witness are appears to be identical at the very first look itself. I also undertook a comparison of the signature of the defendant that was admitted on the written statement and deposition of the witness and deposition of the witness with that the signature of the executant on the pronote it seems both are appears to be one. 20. In the case on hand, the plaintiff discharged his burden to prove the Ex.A2 pronote and also Ex.A1 transfer endorsement and also passing of consideration under Ex.A2 pronote. 20. In the case on hand, the plaintiff discharged his burden to prove the Ex.A2 pronote and also Ex.A1 transfer endorsement and also passing of consideration under Ex.A2 pronote. Therefore, in a suit on a promissory note, the case of the defendant as to the circumstances under which the pronote was executed is not at all accepted, it is open to the appellant to prove the case set up by the plaintiff on the basis of recitals in the pronote or the case set up in the plaint is untrue and to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act by showing the preponderance of probabilities in her favour and against the plaintiff. The appellant need not lead evidence on all conceivable modes of consideration for establishing that Ex.A2 pronote is not at all supported by any consideration whatsoever. For the aforesaid reasons, Ex.A2 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff also proved the Ex.A1 transfer endorsement, hence, the plaintiff is entitled the suit claim. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and the decree and judgment passed by the trail Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. The point is answered accordingly. 21. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the decree and Judgment dated 06.04.2000, in O.S.No.680 of 1989 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.