The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's proof of the execution of the promissory note and the passing of consideration, along with the defendant's failure to discharge the burden of rebutting the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, led to the dismissal of the defendant's appeal and the upholding of the suit decree in favor of the plaintiff.

K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—This appeal by the defendant in O.S. No. 117/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Puttur, Dakshina Kannada is directed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs. 69,850/-.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the appellant/defendant for recovery of Rs. 69,850/- with future interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation inter alia, contending that the defendant for valuable consideration received executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- on 8.12.2000 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount of Rs. 45,000/- on demand together with interest and also acknowledged receipt of the consideration, and in spite of the repeated requests, demands and issue of notices, the defendant failed to pay the amount due under the promissory note. The appellant/defendant upon service of suit summons appeared before the trial Court and contested the claim denying the plaint averments and inter alia contending that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff and at that time the plaintiff had obtained his signature on a revenue stamp affixed on a blank white sheet and also obtained the signature of his brother as a ‘witness and that at the time of repayment of the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- the plaintiff demanded exorbitant interest and since he did not acceded to the said demand, the plaintiff by fabricating the document has made a false claim. According to him he has not borrowed a sum of Rs. 45,000/- from plaintiff as contended.

3. the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant had borrowed a loan Rs. 45,000/- from him by executing the suit promissory note?

2. Whether the defendant proves that he had borrowed only Rs. 10,000/- from plaintiff and discharged the same?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves the suit claim?

4. What order or decree?

4. In. support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined one of the attesting witnesses as P.W. 2. On the other hand the defendant examined himself as D.W. 1, his brother as D.W. 2 and two more witnesses as D.Ws. 3 and 4.

5. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos. I and 3 in the affirmative and issue No. 2 in the negative, In the light of the findings recorded on those issues, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 69,850/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of payment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant, preferred appeal in R.A. No. 16/06 before the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, which was later transferred to Fast Track Court, Puttur. The Lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent, judgments of the Courts below, the defendant has presented this appeal.

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. Perused the judgments under appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:

“That the Courts below have erroneously drawn presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act though the plaintiff has not proved the essential basic fact of execution of promissory note by the defendant that mere admission of signature of the defendant on the promissory note would not by itself constitute the proof of execution of the document; that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence of D.W. 2 that according to the plaintiff D.W. 2 was the scribe of the promissory note Ex. P1, however, D.W. 2 in his evidence has categorically stated that he does not know reading and writing Kannada and the plaintiff has not placed any acceptable evidence on record to show that the con