The burden of proof in a case involving a promissory note rests on the plaintiff to prove both the execution of the promissory note and the passing of consideration.

1. This Second appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit on a promissory note which was decreed by the Munsiff but dismissed by the Subordinate Judge in appeal by the defendant.

2. The promissory note in suit purports to be executed on 18.3.1949 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff or his order and is for a sum of Rs. 500/-. It is recited that Rs. 300/- out of the sum was borrowed on a previous occasion and the balance of Rs. 200/- was a present advance. It is written in the bottom portion of a half sheet of foolscap paper and contains not alone the signature but also the thumb impressions of the executant. The plaint averred that the defendant falsely issued Ext. B1 notice through counsel on 20.6.1949 alleging entrustment with the plaintiff by the defendant of a blank sheet of paper containing the defendant's thumb impression for particular purpose and calling back for its return because the purpose was unfulfilled evidently suggesting that the promissory note was a manipulation and with a view to forestall this suit. The promissory note was filed as Ext. Al and the suit was laid soon after on 28.6.1949.

3. The defendant, by his written statement denied both execution of Ext. Al and also the receipt of any portion of the consideration. He pleaded that he had sought the good services of the plaintiff to intervene on his behalf with Mohammad Kunhi examined in the case as Dw. 2, for grant of a lease of immovable property and had, while he was urgently entraining for Madras, entrusted with the plaintiff a blank half sheet of paper with his thumb impression for being filled up as a Kychit for the purpose, as the plaintiff had desired. Dw. 2 however refused to accept any such make shift arrangement. So the blank paper remained with the plaintiff, the defendant not having claimed it back. Subsequently in or about July 1949 the plaintiff fell out with the defendant's family on account of the refusal by the defendant's elder brother to consummate his marriage with the plaintiff's niece. And the plaintiff in his enmity had taken advantage of the existence of the blank sheet with him to fill it up as the promissory note herein.

4. Even though the defence consisted in a denial of execution and consideration as above the issues in the case were framed as if the burden lay entirely with the defendant as follows:

(1) Whether the suit pronote is not genuine, and

(2) Whether it is not supported by consideration.

The plaintiff examined only himself as Pw.1 while the defendant on his side examined himself as Dw.1 and also Dw. 2. On this evidence the Munsiff found both the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit while the Subordinate Judge found exactly the contrary and dismissed the suit. Hence this Second Appeal by the plaintiff as above said.

5. During the course of his evidence as D.W.1, the defendant admitted that the blank paper with the thumb impression which he alleged he had entrusted to the plaintiff, contained his signature also and further that the signature was in the same ink as the body of the promissory note. This was inconsistent with the points taken by him in Ext. B1 notice and also the written statement. Laying great store by this discrepancy it was, that the Munsiff found in favour of the genuineness of the promissory note. The learned Subordinate Judge, on the other hand, laid emphasis on the fact that the evidence let in by the plaintiff was too scanty to uphold the execution of Ext. Al by the defendant or the advance of consideration thereunder and commented in this connection on the plaintiff's omission to examine the document-writer who was alleged to have written Ext. Al. The defendant's admission as to the signature did not really advance the plaintiff's case for it was only a small bit of the tail end thereof that was on the stamp and there was no explanation again as why, when the defendant was admitted to be literate, his thumb impression was obtained on Ext. Al and the date on the stamp was