M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—S. Nagarthinam, the appellant herein is the defendant is O.S. No. 353 of 1982 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Namkkal. Marrappan, the respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the defendant and the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. In the appeal in A.S. No. 20 of 1985 preferred by the plaintiff/the respondent herein, the learned Sub-Judge, Namakkal allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence, this Second Appeal is filed by the defendant/ the appellant herein.

2. Few facts are these :

On 23.12.79, the defendant/ the appellant herein obtained a loan of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff/the respondent herein and executed a Promissory Note, promising to return the same together with interest at 12 per cent per annum. Since the amount was not paid in time, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant. Despite the receipt of notice, no reply had been sent. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 5,000/-from the defendant.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant by contending that neither he executed a Promissory Note nor the signature contained therein is his and that he never borrowed any money from the plaintiff, who was a stranger to him.

4. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined P. Ws. 2 to 4 on his side. Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked on his behalf. On the other side the defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and no other documentary evidence was let in.

5. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court found, among other things, the signature found in the Promissory Note alleged to have been signed by the defendant did not tally with the other accepted signature and hence, the suit filed by the respondent was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Sub-Court, Namakkal, which in turn, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

7. Hence, the Second Appeal before this Court by the defendant.

8. At the time of admission, the substantial question of law formulated by this Court is as follows :

"Whether the lower appellate Court was erred in law in not holding that the appellant had discharged the burden as to proof of failure of consideration for the promissory note and as such the presumption of consideration contained in Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands rebutted?"

9. In elaboration of the above said substantial question of law, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that once .the defendant through his written statement denied the execution of the Promissory Note and the signature contained therein, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to establish that it was executed by the defendant alone and that the defendant cannot be compelled to prove his plea, in the absence of any proof shown by the plaintiff that the execution of the Promissory Note was made by the defendant and that the well considered judgment and decree of the trial Court have been reversed by the lower appellate Court without adducing proper reason.

10. Heard the Counsel for the parties. I have carefully scrutinised records and the materials available before this Court.

11. At the outset, I shall mention that the plaintiff had adduced materials to establish his plea by examining P.Ws. 1 to 4.

12. According to P.W. 1, the plaintiff the defendant obtained a loan of Rs. 5,000/- from him and executed Ex. A-1 Promissory Note. P.W. 2 Chellappa Gounder is the scribe. He would also state that the only wrote Ex. A-1 Promissory Note and the same was signed by the defendant in the cycle shop of Palani Nathar at Namakkal, on receiving the amount from the plaintiff. P.W. 3 Natarajan who was there in the cycle shop, had attested the Promissory Note. He would also state the details, which are given in the deposition of P.Ws. 1 and 2.

13. As pointed out by the lower appe