S.S.Dhavan, J. - (1.)THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal from the decree of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur confirming that of the First Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur dismissing his suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs 6,529/4/6 plus interest on the basis of a promissory note. The plaintiff appellant Satya Narain and the defendant respondent Smt. Nanki Devi are related, though the relationship is distant. The appellant alleged that the respondent's husband was his uncle (mama) who died in 1949 leaving two widows one of whom is the respondent Nanki Devi; that the respondent resides in last Pakistan; that after her husband's death the two widows had disputes: that the respondent required money for recovery of the debts due to her late husband and requested him (the appellant) to help him and he agreed; that he advanced her money to triable her to file a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge at Fatehpur and another sum of money to pay a part of the sale price of the house which the purchased in Kanpur, and a further sum of money to enable her to carry out the repairs of the house purchased by her; that the respondent was unable to re-pay the amounts borrowed by her but on the appellant's insistence she executed a promissory note on 16-5-56 for Rs. 6529/4/6 with interest at the rate of eight annas per cent per month: that the respondent had not paid this amount in spite of several demands and the appellant was compelled to file the suit as the limitation was expiring.
(2.)THE respondent resisted the suit and denied all liability. She denied that she had executed any promissory not to borrow any money at any time from the appellant, and alleged that the latter had filed a falsa claim at the instigation of the co-widow of her husband. She further alleged that after the death of her husband the appellant was looking after her affairs till 1956 and during this period he was getting money from the respondent under various pretexts and in this manner squandered various amounts by misrepresentation. She contended that during their dealings the appellant was occupying a position of confidence and was also in a position to dominate her will. She alleged that he was getting various papers signed by her under the pretext that they were required in connection with the litigation in the Fatehpur Court and further alleged (to quote her own words),
"it appears that ha got the signature on a blank printed form of pronote and later on got a pronote prepared on the same."
She also alleged that the plaintiff was in a position to dominate her will and she was a widow of immature understanding and not conversant with preparation of documents, and if the plaintiff abused his position and made her sign the document without getting it filled up and completed and without making her understand the implications, then the contract, if any, was voidable at the instance of the respondent on the ground that it had been induced by misrepresentation and undue influence.
Both sides led evidence, oral and documentary. The plaintiff gave evidence himself and produced his son Shri Narain and three other witnesses to prove the advancing of moneys to the defendant from time to time and also examined the scribe and the witnesses of the promissory note. These witnessees testified that the note had been signed by the respondent in their presence. The defendant also gave evidence and testified that she never needed any money from the appellant nor asked him for any loan. She deposed that whenever she needed any money she borrowed it from other persons but never from the appellant She examined Ayodhya Prasad who deposed that he advanced a sum of Rs. 4,000.00 to her and also produced Mathura Prasad who deposed that he had sold the Kanpur house to her and that he had repaired the houst before selling it She also produced certain documents with the object of showing that the appellant had acted as her pairokar in the Fatehpur suit and in another proceeding at Kanpur. She also produced two postcards written by the appellant's son Shiy Narain for the purpose of proving that he was in charge of her affairs during her absence in East Pakistan. The trial court, after reviewing the entire evidence, believed the respondent's version and disbelieved the appellant's story that he had lent moneys to her. It held that the promissory note and the receipt were not executed for consideration. It also held that the promissory note was not duly executed. On these findings it dismissed the suit with costs. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge held that the appellant stood in a position of active confidence to the respondent and, therefore, under Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction was on him. He then considered "whether that burden had been discharged", and observed that there was a complete absence of any evidence of any amounts having been lent actually by the appellant to the respondent and that the only witnesses of payments were the plaintiff and his son Shiv Narain. He rejected the Bahis of the appellant as "wastepaper". He disbelieved the plaintiff's witnesses who had testified that the note was executed in their presence. He believed the defendant's witnesses. On these findings he held that the appellant had failed to prove either the execution of the note or its consideration and dismissed the appeal. The appellant has now come to this Court in second appeal.

(3.)I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent at considerable length. As this case presented some peculiar features, I permitted the appellant's counsel. In the interests of justice, to prepare a typed paper book of the entire record for my perusal. The hearing of this appeal lasted several days.