22 . The plaintiff has taken the risk of lending money through several transactions and in fact, she had lent a huge sum without obtaining any security. She had chosen to get only a promissory note and an undertaking from the deceased Sheela Venugopal. But in the legal notice of the plaintiff, which is marked as Ex.P4 itself, she has mentioned that Rs.2,18,50,000/- is the amount that was admitted to be paid by the 1st defendant in pursuant to the loan availed by his wife. Since the legal notice of the plaintiff herself coupled with her evidence, the plaintiff stated about the due of Rs.2,18,50,000/-, it can only be presumed that though the suit promissory note was executed by Sheela Venugopal for Rs.2.50 crore, the actual amount due as in the date of the legal notice was Rs.2,18,50,000/-. The 1st defendant has come out with a defence that Ex.P3 was not signed by him and hence, the plaintiff cannot claim that it is an acknowledgement as against the first defendant. The handwriting expert evidence goes in favour of the 1st defendant on this aspect. Hence, Ex.P3 cannot be considered as an undertaking given by the 1st defendant. However, from the fact mentioned by the plaintiff herself in the legal notice about the quantum , which is similar to what is mentioned in Ex.P3, it can be safely concluded that the deceased Sheela Venugopal had dues of Rs.2,18,50,000/-
