Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Such a theory would explain the delay in the complaint and its omissions, the hesitations of the respondent in his first statement to the police and the anxiety of the respondent to add to his witnesses a number of persons subject to his control who would support the details of his story. It would also explain the anxiety of the appellant to repudiate the whole occurrence, his unwillingness to produce his own accounts and the not very convincing evidence adduced by him of the discharge of the earlier promissory note. But such a theory can only be entertained in the absence of reliable evidence that this promissory note for Rs. 24,400 was in existence before 30th March. If the respondent can prove that this large debt was evidenced by a promissory note which had been in his possession long before this alleged occurrence on 30th March 1934, it is incredible that he would have concocted a false story of the loss of the promissory note instead of simply filing a suit upon it. We are unable to accept the theory that there was no occurrence at Pothanur on 30th March 1934 and unless it is possible to show that the respondent's story of what happened that day has been exaggerated probably by the inclusion of a promissory note for Rs. 24,400 which did not exist amongst the documents lost on that day, the only possible inference from the appellant's denials, from the false evidence which he has adduced, from the suppression of his accounts and from the failure to; examine his two servants, Sitayya and Subbayya who are alleged to have taken part in this occurrence, is that the respondent's story must be substantially true.