The judgment establishes the principle that the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, can be rebutted by providing a probable defense to prove the non-existence of consideration.

(Prayer: This Appeal has been filed against the decree and Judgment dated 24.1.1992 passed in O.S.No.16/1990 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram.)

This Appeal has been preferred against the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.16/1990 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram.

2. On the basis of a promissory note dated 1.6.1987 for a sum of Rs.25,000/- the plaintiff has filed the suit for realization of the same from the Defendant with 12% interest and costs. The Defendant in his written statement has denied the execution of the suit promissory note. According to the Defendant the suit promissory note was executed some 15 years back by him to the father of the plaintiff and that there was no consideration passed on the suit promissory note. According to the Defendant the suit promissory note is a forged one and that it does not contain the signature of the Defendant. In the additional written statement the Defendant has raised a contention that during the life time of the father of the plaintiff the Defendant had executed some documents signing on stamp papers which were subsequently been forged by the plaintiff after the death of his father and that no consideration was passed on the suit promissory note. The plaintiff in his reply statement has denied the averments raised in the additional written statement filed by the Defendant.

3. On the above pleadings the learned trial judge had framed two issues and on the basis of the documentary evidence let in by both parties, the learned trial judge has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the case and has consequently decreed the suit as prayed for with costs.

4. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial judge the Defendant has preferred this Appeal.

5. Now the point for determination in this Appeal is whether the suit promissory note has been executed by the Defendant for consideration?

6. The point:-

6 (a) Even though the Defendant in his earlier written statement has denied his signature in Ex.A.1-promissory note, in the additional written statement he has admitted his signature in Ex.A.1-promissory note. But he would contend that there was some transaction between him and the father of the plaintiff and at that time he had handed over some documents including white papers containing his signature on the revenue stamps, which were subsequently forged by the plaintiff and one such concocted document is Ex.A.1. But absolutely, apart from ipse dixit of the Defendant, there is no evidence on record to show that the Defendant had executed some documents, including unwritten papers containing his signature on the stamp papers, to the father of the plaintiff at any point of time. The written statement is silent with regard to the alleged transaction which was in existence between the Defendant and the father of the plaintiff. On the other hand, both in the additional written statement as well as in his evidence before the trial Court as D.W.1, the Defendant had categorically admitted that Ex.A.1 contains his signature. Under such circumstances, the presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, will be that consideration passed under Ex.A.1-promissory note. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, runs as follows:

"Presumptions as to negotiable Instruments:- Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made :

(a) of consideration: that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

(b) as to date: that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;

(c) as to time of acceptance: that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;

(d) as to time of transfer: that every transfer of negotiable instrument was made before i