onus back to the plaintiff to prove the actual passing of consideration. Firstly, in this case, the defence of the defendants is that at the time of the defendants being made as cultivating tenants, blank stamp papers and pronotes are taken as security, by itself points out to an abnormal transaction and therefore, it is for the defendants to have strictly proved the same. It is in this context, when D.W.3 was cross-examined, the contention in the written statement, that there was a written lease deed, was denied and therefore, the defendants' case becomes doubtful. The learned Counsel further pointed out the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the name of the person who has written the promissory notes. In this case, it is the case of the plaintiff that D.W.5, Sekar , who had been examined by the defendants, is not concerned Sekar and therefore, the evidence of D.W.5 does not in any manner come to the help of the defendants. There is a contradiction between the name of the person who has written the promissory note whether he is velan and Sekar , but, however, the said contradiction is not a material one and it is only the attesting witness's testimony which becomes relevant. D.W.4 has clearly and categorically deposed that the plaintiff has advanced the said amount.
