the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- out of the proceeds of sale of that proclainer. Further, PWs.2 and 3 stated that the said sum of Rs.6,00,000/- had been given in the form of cash by the plaintiff to the 1st and 3rd defendants at the house of the plaintiff on 04.11.2007 and that PW.2 had scribed the pro-note, which was signed by the 1st and 3rd defendants at that time. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 was not shaken during the crossexamination and nothing has been placed before the trial Court to doubt the veracity of the depositions of these two witnesses. It must still be noted that an admission was obtained from both the witnesses that the respondent/plaintiff had not advanced the loan to the 3rd defendant. However, this admission may not be relevant as the case set out by the plaintiff is that the money was taken by the 1st and 3rd defendants for the benefit of the 2nd defendant. Further, the plaintiff had also produced Ex.A.6, which shows that immoveable property had been purchased in the name of the 2nd defendant on 07.11.2007, which is three days after the loan was taken by defendants 1 and 3 on 04.11.2007. This would clearly demonstrate that the version of the plaintiff is believable and the burden cast on the 1st and 3rd defendants had not been discharged by them.
