The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can be rebutted by the defendant not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence or by raising other presumptions of law or fact.

1. - This is a plaintiffs first appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated October 20, 1976, passed by the District Judge, Bhilwara, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for the recovery of Rs. 14,160/-.

2. The suit was filed on December 21, 1971, for the recovery of Rs. 14,160/- in the Court of District Judge, Bhilwara, against Shri.Sambbu Singh respondent herein The suit was based on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by Sambhu Singh on June 28, 1970, for Rs. 12,000/-. It was alleged that the defendant had taken a loan of Rs. 12,000/- on June 28, 1970 and promised to pay the same on demand with interest @ 12% per annum and had executed a promissory note and a receipt the same day. The plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 12,000/- as principal and Rs. 2,160/- as interest, total Rs. 14,160/-.

3. The defendant, in his written statement denied having received any amount from the plaintiff. It was alleged that the defendant was not at Bhilwara on June 28, 1970 and did not take any loan at any time from the plaintiff. He did not even know the defendant. It was stated that the defendant had not executed any pro-note or receipt in favour of the plaintiff. It was averred that the defendants father had taken a compressor for his tractor from one Shri Ramswaroop Gupta. The defendant asked Shri Ramswaroop Gupta to sell the said compressor to him. Shri Ramswaroop Gupta in that connection, got a blank promote form signed from the defendant. Later on Shri Ramswarop Gupta came to the defendants village and took away the compressor in the absence of the defendant. It was pleaded that by callusing with the plaintiff Shri Ramswaroop Gupta had got the present suit filed, although the defendant had not monetary transaction with the plaintiff.

4. The District Judge, by judgment dated October 20, 1976, has dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the ground that it was not established that the pro-note and the receipt were for consideration.

5. Dis-satisfied with the judgment of the District Judge, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal in this Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri Dinesh Maheshwari, counsel for the appellant, has urged that the plaintiffs suit was the based on promissory note and the receipt executed on June 28, 1970. The signatures on the promissory note and the receipt .are admitted by the defendant. Therefore, argues learned counsel, a presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred as to The Act, was clearly available that the promissory note was drawn for consideration. Shri Maheshwari submitted that the defendant had failed to rebut this presumption and the learned District Judge, by placing a wrong burden on the plaintiff, had committed a mistake in holding that the promissory note and the receipt were without consideration. Shri Dave, counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, fully supported the judgment of the learned District Judge.

7. True, Section 118 of the Act gives rise to a presumption that the negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and the onus to prove that no consideration in-fact passed to the executant was on the party who relied on the said instrument. Dealing with the question how the presumption could be rebutted the Supreme Court in Kundan Lal Rallaram v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, AIR 1961 SC 1316 . said:

"The question is, how the burden can be discharged. The rules of evidence pertaining to burden of proof are embodied in Chapter VII of the Evidence Act. The phrase "burden of Proof has two meanings- one the burden of proof as a matter of law and pleading and the other the burden of establishing a case; the former is fixed as a question of law on the basis of the pleadings and is unchanged during the entire trial, whereas the latter is not constant but shifts as soon as a party adduces sufficient evidence to raise a presumption in his favour. The evidence required to shift the burden need not necessarily be dire