regarding service of notice is concerned and he categorically admits that the address shown in the legal notice pertains to his residence, hence, the very contention regarding no service of notice cannot be accepted. It is also the case of the respondent that the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid and on demand, the subject matter of cheques were issued. I have already pointed out that the petitioner has not disputed the signature on the cheques and apart from that his only contention that the respondent was not having source of income. But it is the evidence of PW1 that he had paid the said amount out of his salary savings and also there is a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque and the petitioner has to rebut the same. Admittedly, Ex.c6 also executed by the petitioner and the same is also not disputed by him. Now, the petitioner cannot contend that the respondent was not having source of income to pay the amount to him. Taking note of the material on record, both the Courts have came to the definite conclusion that there was a loan transaction between the parties and Ex.C1 and 3 were issued in respect of the said loan transaction and apart from that Ex.C6 was also executed in favour of the respondent in this regard. When such being the case, I do not find any perversity
