the suit transaction when the execution of the pronote is proved and accepted by the lower court. The presumption that it is supported by consideration as mentioned in the pronote and it is for the defendant to rebut the presumption. In this case there is absolutely no such evidence to rebut such transaction. On the other hand, the relationship between the parties was a financial relationship of lending money. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances and in view of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, I have no hesitation in holding that the pronote was executed by the first defendant after borrowing Rs.74,000/- and the payment endorsement under Ex.A-2 is also sufficiently proved by the evidence of PW.1 and the reasons given by the learned Senior Civil Judge in dismissing the suit are not at all convincing if not perverse. Therefore, I hold that the first defendant being executant of the pronote is liable to pay the debt. Since the third defendant is not executant of the document she is not liable to pay the amount and there is also no proof of the borrowing of the amount for the benefit of the family and as such the second defendant is also not liable to pay the same. Since as per the evidence of PW.1 the borrowing is for agricultural purpose the interest cannot be claimed @ 24% and only 12.5% interest is payable by the defendant. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the first defendant only for a sum of Rs.74,000/- with interest @ 12.5% from 24-06-1990 till the date of decree less the payment on 10-06-1993 which is Rs.100/- with the same interest and subsequent interest @ 6% from the date of decree till date of realisaiton. The suit against the second and third defendants is dismissed. The plaintiff will be entitled to costs in the lower court and in this court. The points are accordingly answered.
