The court emphasized the importance of proving consideration for a promissory note and highlighted the requirements of a promissory note under S.4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in a Small Cause Suit, SCS. No. 1/70 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry.

2. The suit is for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 295/- made up of principal Rs. 250/- and interest thereon. The plaintiff's claim is based on Ext. P-2 dated 211967 purported to be a promissory note. The plaint proceeds on the footing that Ext. P-2 happened to be executed in renewal of Ext. P-1 promissory note dated 711964 for Rs. 200/-.

3. The defendant contests the suit on various grounds. According to him, there is no consideration either for Ext. P-1 or Ext. P-2. He also contends that Ext. P-2 is not a promissory note as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Explaining the circumstances under which Exts. P-1 and P-2 happened to be executed, he has stated that the plaintiff's father was a tenant in respect of 10 acres of land belonging to his illom and that his grandfather had obtained a decree for eviction of the plaintiff's father from that property in O.S. No. 218/1123 on the file of the District Court, Kottayam; at the instance of the plaintiff's father defendant filed an obstruction petition to prevent the plaintiff's father being evicted from the property. The expenses in connection with the obstruction petition had to be met by the plaintiff's father. The defendant had promised to execute a melotti along with other members of his illom in favour of the plaintiff's father and it is by way of security for the due performance of that promise that Ext. P-1 promissory note was executed without any consideration whatsoever. He also contends that Ext. P-2 is not a renewal of Ext P-1 note.

4. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 200/- with interest thereon from the date of execution of Ext. P-1. The contention of the defendant that in Ext. P-1 promissory note there were material alterations and therefore no claim could be based on that document was repelled by the learned Munsiff taking the view that in any event Ext. P-1 promissory note was superseded by Ext. P-2 document and there was also an endorsement on Ext. P-1 promissory note to that effect. The learned Munsiff gave the defendant the benefit of paying the decree amount in instalments as provided under Act 11 of 1970 accepting the contention of the defendant that he is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Act. The reason for giving a decree for Rs. 200/- and interest thereon from the date of Ext. P-1 promissory note, according to the learned Munsiff, is that the interest on the principal amount of Rs. 200/- shown in Ext. P-2 document is not correct. Though there is no stipulation in Ext. P-2 promissory note, interest was given at the rate of 6%.

5. We have now to examine whether there was consideration for the promissory note. When the defendant denies to have received consideration, the plaintiff is to prove that consideration has actually passed. In this case we have only the interested evidence of the plaintiff who examined himself as pw.1. dw. 2 appears to be an attestor both to Exts. P-1 and P-2. He has shown to the circumstances under which Exts. P-1 and P-2 documents happened to be executed. If the evidence of the defendant as dw.1 and the attestor of the documents as dw. 2 is accepted, it has to be held that there has not been any consideration for Exts. P-1 and P-2 documents. The evidence on record would lead to the conclusion that Exts. P-1 and P2 came into existence in very suspicious circumstances and the true facts have not been unfolded by the plaintiff. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff has not succeeded in proving that Exts. P-1 and P-2 documents are supported by consideration.

6. The next question that arises for consideration is whether Ext. P-2 is a promissory note as defined in S.4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. S.4 of the Act reads as follows:

114. A "promissory note" is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional underta