(1.) On the basis o a pro-note the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the respondent for the recovery of Rs. 5,370. The defendant, while admitting the execution of the pro-note, pleaded that it was without consideration, and was executed on the representation of the plaintiff that he would supply Shaw Mine Mica and requesting him to give an advance of Rs. 5,000, accordingly he issued a cheque on 'self' on the Andhra Bank Ltd., and endorsed the same in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff wanted a further sum of Rs. 4,400 or the supply of the Shaw Mine Mica. Thereupon he issued another cheque on 'self' for Rs. 4,400, but the plaintiff did not supply mica and promised to supply the same after he receive them. The defendant further says that the plaintiff met the defendant on 4th December, 1951 and represented to him that he had not cashed the cheque and saying so he returned the cheque and asked him to pay the amount in clash and as the defendant was not in a position to pay the cash, executed the said pro-note. It was further averred that the plaintiff is not a person having any means and was indebted to others. Two issues were framed. On the evidence produced, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that cash was paid on the execution of the pro-note. In the result he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has now come up in appeal.
(2.) Sri K. B. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the appellant, relying on Addepalli Lakshmanaswamy v. Gadireddi Narasimha Rao, (1937) M.L.J. 414 : A.I.R 1937 Mad. 223 , and Tarmahomed Haji Abdul Rehman v. Tyeb Ebrahim Bharamchari, AIR 1949 Bombay 257 , contended that the Court below has erred in holding that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff. It is further contended that the evidence on record sufficiently negatives the case of the defendant.
(3.) Sri Babulu Reddy, Learned counsel for the respondent, relying on Sundarammal alias Sowbhagiammal v. V. Subrahmania Chettiar, (1914) 29 M.L.J. 236 , and V. Sami Sah v. J. Parthasarathy Chetty, (1915) 31 I.C. 739 , contended that the Court below has rightly held that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the pro-note was for cash consideration.