JUDGMENT This regular first appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the decree and judgment dated 18.08.2018 in O.S. No.4/2017 on the files of the Sub Court, Punalur. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff as well as the learned counsel who filed claim petition on behalf of Sri.Sreejith, claiming absolute title over the property attached by this Court by an interim order. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court. 3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as “plaintiff” and “defendant” with reference to their status before the trial court. 4. Short facts:- The plaintiff instituted this suit to realize Rs.25 Lakh alleged to be borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff, during the period between March, 2014 and June, 2016. According to the plaintiff, in discharge of the said sum, the defendant issued cheque dated 15.11.2016 drawn on Federal Bank, Kottarakkara Branch for Rs.25 Lakh. When the cheque was presented for collection, the same got dishonored for want of funds. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit to realize the said amount along with interest at the rate of 18% interest per annum. 5. Defendant filed written statement denying the transaction as well as entitlement of Rs.25 Lakh by the plaintiff on the strength of the cheque dated 15.11.2016. Execution of the cheque also was denied. The specific contention raised by the defendant before the trial court was that, the plaintiff had no financial capacity to lend such a huge sum of Rs.25 Lakh to the defendant. The specific case of the defendant further was that, the husband of the defendant, Mr.Alexander borrowed Rs.7,85,000/- from Mr.Bibu, who is the husband of the younger sister of the plaintiff, for the purpose of admission of his daughter for BDS course, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 5% per annum. At the time of this transaction, two signed blank cheques of the defendant were given and one among the cheques was misused for the purpose of this case. Accordingly, the entire plaint averments were denied. 6. On the pleadings, the trial court raised necessary issues. 7. Thereafter, the trial court tried the matter. At the time of this transaction, two signed blank cheques of the defendant were given and one among the cheques was misused for the purpose of this case. Accordingly, the entire plaint averments were denied. 6. On the pleadings, the trial court raised necessary issues. 7. Thereafter, the trial court tried the matter. PWs 1 and 2 examined and Exts.A1 to A8 marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 examined and Exts.B1 to B3 marked on the side of the defendant. 8. On anxious consideration of the evidence tendered, the trial court dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the disputed transaction and her entitlement of the amount as per Ext.A1 cheque. 9. While assailing the verdict of the trial court, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that, even though PWs 1 and 2 supported the case put up by the plaintiff as regards to borrowing of Rs.25 Lakh by the defendant and execution of Ext.A1 cheque, by the defendant in return of the said amount, the trial court miserably failed to evaluate the evidence in its proper perspective and accordingly the trial court found that the case advanced by the plaintiff was not proved. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the trial court ought to have decreed the suit relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Thus, the impugned verdict requires interference. In the alterative, the learned counsel for the plaintiff sought for remand of the matter with liberty to the plaintiff to adduce further evidence in support of her contentions. 10. Adv.Bijith S. Khan represented by Adv.Reshma, who is appearing for one Mr.Sreejith, the claim petitioner, submitted that, in this matter, the property attached by this Court is one absolutely belongs to the claim petitioner and the property was purchased by Sri.Sreejith from the husband of the defendant and the defendant is not at all the owner of the property at any point of time. Therefore, the attachment is liable to be lifted. 11. In this matter, there is no appearance for the defendant/respondent. The points arise for consideration are: (i) whether the plaintiff succeeded in proving the execution of Ext.A1 cheque and receipt of Rs.25 lakh by the defendant? (ii) Whether the verdict under challenge requires any interference? (iii) Relief and costs. 12. Therefore, the attachment is liable to be lifted. 11. In this matter, there is no appearance for the defendant/respondent. The points arise for consideration are: (i) whether the plaintiff succeeded in proving the execution of Ext.A1 cheque and receipt of Rs.25 lakh by the defendant? (ii) Whether the verdict under challenge requires any interference? (iii) Relief and costs. 12. In the instant case, the plaintiff herself got examined as PW1 and another witness to the transaction got examined as PW2. By filing chief affidavit, PW1 supported the transaction in tune with the plaint averments. During cross examination, the evidence of PW1 was attempted to be shaken by putting questions regarding her source to advance Rs.25 lakh, as alleged, in between March, 2014 and June, 2016. PW1 gave evidence that she availed a loan of Rs.10 lakh from a bank to be paid to the defendant. Trial court disbelieved this evidence since nothing substantiated by evidence to show availing of loan, as deposed by PW1. The trial court did not give much emphasis to Ext.A8 pass book, where there is evidence to show that the husband of the plaintiff availed loan of Rs.10,50,000/- on 25.04.2011 and closed the same on 21.06.2011. The court disbelieved the case of the plaintiff that she advanced Rs.25 lakh without any document at the time of handing over of the amount, in a case, where the case of the plaintiff is that Ext.A1 cheque was issued subsequently on 15.11.2016 for the sum advanced in between March, 2014 and June, 2016. 13. The case of the defendant is that the husband of the defendant borrowed Rs.7,85,000/- from one Bibu, who is the brother in law of the plaintiff, and for the said transaction, two blank signed cheques were issued and one among the said cheques was misused for the purpose of this case. It is true that the defendant not raised any contention as to whether the liability with Mr.Bibu was discharged or not. Trial court found that the evidences of PW2 and PW1 are contrary. It was found by the trial court that PW2 gave evidence that Ext.A1 cheque was issued only after making visit along with PW1 upon demand. The evidence of PW1 is that the cheque was received with the compulsion of the defendant. The trial court also found the evidence of PW2 as artificial in nature, as the same is inconsistent. It was found by the trial court that PW2 gave evidence that Ext.A1 cheque was issued only after making visit along with PW1 upon demand. The evidence of PW1 is that the cheque was received with the compulsion of the defendant. The trial court also found the evidence of PW2 as artificial in nature, as the same is inconsistent. The finding of the trial court in this regard is convincing. 14. In a suit based on a negotiable instrument, particularly a cheque, twin presumptions are available with the holder of a cheque, viz., presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and they are as under: “S.118 Presumptions 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 stamp; 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 SP offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burthen of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him." "139: Presumption in favour of holder:-- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability." 15. Section 118 states that, “until the contrary is proved? presumptions (a) to (g) shall be made. Similarly, Section 139 states that, “unless the contrary is proved”, it shall be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. When the issuance of the cheque is admitted for the transaction alleged, these presumptions would be available to the plaintiff. But the presumptions are not available merely by production of the cheque before the court. In order to get these presumptions attracted, an initial burden is cast upon the plaintiff to prove the transaction which led to issuance of cheque and in such cases, once such initial burden is discharged and “unless the contrary is proved”, both presumptions would help the drawer of the cheque in getting a decree in his favour. At the same time, these presumptions are not absolute and are rebuttable presumptions. The defendant could very well rebut the presumptions by adducing independent evidence or by pointing out the evidence already tendered by the plaintiff also. When the capacity of the plaintiff to pay the cheque amount is put under challenge by the defendant and raises a contention in deviation from the contention of the plaintiff, in the matter of issuance of the cheque, that is to say, a probable defence, it is the primary duty of the plaintiff to prove that she had enough source to advance the cheque amount to the defendant, for which the cheque was issued in lieu of the amount so given. The burden to prove the source to advance the money as alleged is mightiest, when the cheque amount is gigantic. 16. In the instant case, the defendant raised a contention that the cheque was issued in favour of one Bibu, who is none other than the brother in law of the plaintiff, when the husband of the plaintiff borrowed Rs.7,85,000/- from him in connection with the B.D.S admission of his daughter. A person, who alleges advancement of Rs.25 lakh to the defendant and issuance of the cheque for the said sum in return, should prove the capacity to advance the said amount as alleged when the same is specifically disputed. A person, who alleges advancement of Rs.25 lakh to the defendant and issuance of the cheque for the said sum in return, should prove the capacity to advance the said amount as alleged when the same is specifically disputed. In the instant case, the husband of the plaintiff has been working abroad and the plaintiff has been doing the job of a Beautician. It is relevant to note that the plaintiff’s husband availed loan of Rs.10,50,000/- when he was in need of money during 2011 and closed the same on 21.06.2011. The transaction alleged by the plaintiff is in between March, 2014 and June, 2016 and the case of the plaintiff is that in order to discharge the liability of Rs.25 lakah for the said period, as on 15.11.2016, Ext.A1 cheque was issued. Regarding the source, PW1 given evidence that she availed Rs.10 lakh as loan to advance the said sum, her evidence in no way suggest that how she obtained Rs.25 lakh to advance periodically. In addition to that, PW1 failed to depose the details of the transactions stating specifically the fractions of the amount and dates of its payment. Thus in the instant case the evidence adduced by PW1 supported by PW2 is, in fact, insufficient to prove the transaction and execution of Ext.A1 cheque by the defendant, and the trial court also found so on proper appreciation of evidence. If so, no decree is liable to be passed and the plaintiff will not get the benefit of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. Thus the trial court rightly dismissed the Suit and the said verdict is only to be confirmed. 17. Although the learned counsel for the plaintiff urged for a remand, no reasons substantiated to justify a remand in this matter and a remand should not be ordered to fill up the lacuna in evidence. Thus the remand prayer also stands disallowed. 18. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. Considering the nature of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 19. The attachment ordered by this Court in I.A.No.1/2018 stands lifted. Thereby, I.A.No.5/2024 filed by the claim petitioner stands allowed. All other interlocutory applications stand dismissed. Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the officers concerned intimating lifting attachment forthwith, without fail, along with schedule of attachment.