The burden of proof in a promissory note case rests on the plaintiff to prove execution and advance of consideration. The presumption under S.114, Evidence Act is conditional and subject to rebutting circumstances.

1. Plaintiff filed a suit on a promissory note for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1150/-. The defendant contended that he has not executed any promissory note. Further he said that there were some transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant and in connection with these transactions, some papers stamped and signed were given to the plaintiff. I may at once say that in the written statement, the defendant said only that some papers with stamps affixed were given but did not say that those papers contained his signature. His case is that the plaintiff fabricated a promissory note in one of these papers given by him. In evidence the defendant said that the alleged promissory note was not executed by him and that he has given blank papers stamped and signed for the purpose of some other transaction between himself and the plaintiff.

2. The trial court, after considering the evidence, found that the promissory note was not genuine and dismissed the suit. The appellate court, after a re-appraisal of the evidence, did not agree with the trial court. It decreed the suit. Now the defendant files this civil revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that though there was no question of law raised before the appellate court, which is now an essential requirement for entertaining an appeal in a suit of the nature cognizable by courts of small causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees, the appellate court has admitted the appeal. Counsel refers me to S.96(4) C. P. C. It reads thus:-

"No appeal shall lie except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees."

4. The appellate court re-appreciated the evidence and disagreed with the trial court. This, according to the revision petitioner, is against law. He contends that the appellate court can entertain an appeal against the decree of the trial court only on a question of law. When the appeal is entertainable only on a question of law, the jurisdiction of the appellate court to interfere with the decree also is co-terminus with that condition and so confined to a question of law. Certainly, this is a very attractive argument. But on a closer examination of this submission, I find that though the appellate court did not say clearly that a question of law is involved, in the appeal, it has considered a question of law that has arisen on the facts of the case. Who should discharge the onus of proof, is a question recognised by courts as a question of law. Appellate court says that the appeal involves a question of burden of proof.

5. In a case where the defendant contends that though the signature in the promissory note produced before the court is that of the defendant, but that signature was put not to authenticate a promissory note but it was a signature put on a blank paper, it cannot be considered as an admission of the execution of the promissory note. The admission of the signature has to be taken along with the statement explaining the circumstance under which the signature was affixed in the document. It has to be treated as a denial of the execution of the promissory note. In those circumstances, the case has to be tried determining the onus of proof on the basis that there is a denial of the execution of the promissory note.

6. What is the content of that connotation'execution'? What are the attributes connoted by the term? Will it signify in addition, inclusion of something in the meaning of the word besides what it primarily denotes? Is it correct to hold that execution means mere admission of the signature on the controversial document, while denying specifically the authentication of the contents of the document? Does not the word execution mean subscribing the signature on the document consciously afte