Once the execution of a promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises that it is supported by consideration. This presumption is rebuttable, and the burden is on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration.

The defendant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 23. 1995 passed in O.S.No.200 of 1990 by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.

2. The respondent herein filed the suit seeking for a decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs.74,800/- with future interest and costs. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.55,000/-from the plaintiff for her business and family expenses on 30.3.1987 and executed the suit pronote agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and the defendant did not repay any amount either towards principal or interest inspite of demand and the defendant was doing business and hence the interest was claimed at the rate of 12% per annum in the suit.

3. The defendant, in the written statement, has denied the plaint allegation that she borrowed a sum of Rs.55,000/- and executed the suit promissory note and stated that the suit promissory note was executed under the following circumstances by the defendant. According to the defendant, she and four others entered into a partnership deed under the name and style of Premier Steels in May 1984 and purchased land at Thekkalur Village, Avanashi Taluk, Coimbatore and the defendants share was 25% in the firm and the plaintiff, a close friend of the defendants husband, expressed his desire to become a partner in the firm and the defendants husband agreed to give half of her share i.e., 12.5% to the plaintiff and the value of 12.5% share was fixed at Rs.1,10,000/-and the partnership was re-constituted by taking the plaintiff as one of the partners in the firm in the month of November, 1985 and during the beginning of 1987, the plaintiff doubted the actual value of the land which was purchased in the name of the firm and felt his 12.5% is not worth to the value of Rs.1,10,000/- and he valued it at Rs.55,000/-and he wanted some record for the remaining Rs.55,000/-from the defendant and in view of close friendship, the suit promissory note was executed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant has further stated that she did not receive any amount from the plaintiff on the suit promissory note and the same is not supported by consideration and no demand of payment was made. The defendant in her additional written statement has stated that when her signature was taken in the suit promissory note, it did not bear the signature of the second attestor, by name Devaraj and behind the back of her, the plaintiff has fabricated the suit promissory note by introducing the second attestor and the same is not valid in law and it is vitiated on the ground of fabrication.

4. The plaintiff, in his reply statement, has stated that the suit promissory note was written by the husband of the defendant in the presence of both the attestors and the defendant and the defendant admitted the contents of suit promissory note as correct and signed the same in the presence of witnesses and it is false to state that Devaraj, the attestor was not present at the time of execution of the suit promissory note and did not sign as attestor.

5. The Trial Court framed three issues and the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined P.W.2 and marked Ex.A1 Promissory Note on his side and the defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and examined D.W.2 and did not adduce any documentary evidence on her side. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration and the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for and granted a decree for a sum of Rs.74,800/-together with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation with costs. Challenging the same, the defendant has preferred the present appeal. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

6. The Points for determination in this appeal are:-

1. Whether the suit promissory note is not suppo