The legal principle established is the burden of proof and the presumption of consideration in negotiable instruments, which influenced the court's decision in upholding the admission of the Promissory Note and Receipt as evidence.

1. - This is a civil first appeal filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 5.3.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barmer, by which the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for Rs. 1,20,000/- u/O. 37 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC with costs against the appellant-defendant and further allowed interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount from the date of presentation of the plaint upto the passing of the decree.

2. The facts giving rise to this first appeal are as follows :

That plaintiff-respondent filed a suit in the Court of Additional District Judge, Barmer on 11.11.1986 against the appellant-defendant for recovery of Rs. 1,20,000/- a/O. 37 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC on the basis of the Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and receipt (Ex. 2) dated 21.1.1984 stating that appellant-defendant executed Ex. 1 Promissory Note and Ex. 2 Receipt in favour of the plaintiff-respondent after settling the old account. He has further stated that appellant-defendant is a Contractor and has been taking the building contracts and for that purpose, he used to take loan time to time from the plaintiff-respondent and after clearing the old account, the said Promissory Note and Receipt Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 respectively were executed by the defendant-appellant on 21.1.1984 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent for Rs. 90,400/-. It is further stated that on this amount of Rs. 90,400/-, Rs. 29,600/- as interest @ 12% p.a. has further been charged and, therefore, plaintiff-respondent claims Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs. 90,400/- as principal amount and Rs. 29,600/- as interest).

After filing of the suit, the appellant-defendant filed an application on 19.2.1987 a/O. 37 R. 3 CPC with the prayer that he may be allowed to defend the suit and this prayer was granted to him and, thereafter, he filed a written statement on 26.4.1988. In his written statement, appellant-defendant has alleged that he did not execute alleged Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and Receipt (Ex. 2) on 21.1.1984 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and no dues were outstanding against him and both Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and Receipt (Ex. 2) are forged one. Since the alleged Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and Receipt (Ex. 2) are not properly stamped, therefore, they are not admissible in evidence as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and from this point of view also, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Further, the plaintiff-respondent is a money lender and has been doing the business of money lending and since the plaintiff-respondent has not obtained the money lending license, his suit is also not maintainable as per the provisions of Sections 22 & 23 of the Money Lending Act, 1963. It is further alleged that father of the plaintiff-respondent-Deep Singh is a close friend of the defendant-appellant and both used to do business of taking building contracts jointly or in partnership and in the year 1970, when the defendant-appellant was doing the business of taking building contracts, at that time, the father of the plaintiff-respondent-Deep Singh used to advance loan to the defendant-appellant for doing the contract works. The father of the plaintiff while advancing money on loan to the defendant-appellant, put a condition that defendant-appellant should submit blank Promissory Note and Receipt to Deep Singh and in these circumstances, blank Promissory Note and Receipt duly signed by the defendant-appellant were given to the father of the plaintiff-respondent. The said blank Promissory Note and Receipt though demanded by the defendant-appellant many times, but the same were not handed over to him by the father of the plaintiff-respondent. In the year 1980, defendant-appellant took some contracts and the father of the plaintiff-respondent expressed desire to become benami partner and it was decided that the plaintiff-respondent would look after the said works on behalf of his father and the defendant-appellan