amount to the Defendant through a promissory note, which was subsequently transferred to P.W.1, who then filed the suit in O.S.No.99 of 2004. It appears that P.W.1 may have misstated that he had lent the money under two separate promissory notes. The Appellate Court rightly observed that this discrepancy does not defeat the credibility of the suit transaction. The confusion in P.W.I's testimony may have led to this inconsistency, but it does not necessarily cast doubt on the legitimacy of theclaim. 20. In support of his defence, the Defendant relied on Ex.BI, an L.I.C. Bond in his name. As correctly observed by the 1®* Appellate Court, Ex.BI was not referred in the Defendant's written statement. The policy indicates that Defendant took out an L.I.C. policy in his name while Plaintiff is an L.I.C. agent. According to DW.1, there have been disputes between him and the Plaintiff since 1999. However, the suit transaction occurred on 27.12.1998, indicating that no such conflicts existed between them in 1998. DW.1 further testified that the Plaintiff and Defendant are not strangers but have been acquainted since childhood. He claimed that disputes arose concerning the revalidation of the L.I.C. policy. However, the Defendant did not plead that the disputes occurred about the revalidation of the policy.
