The defendant's admission of her signature in the pronote invoked the legal presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the burden of proof was on the defendant to establish the non-existence of consideration.

1. Since CRP (NPD) Nos.1204 and 1205 of 2006 are arising out of I.A.Nos.311 and 463 of 2005 which are part and parcel of appeal in A.S.No.53 of 2004, they are jointly taken up together for common disposal.

2. The present second appeal has been brought by the defendant being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.

3. The plaintiff / respondent herein filed a suit on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Coimbatore, for recovery of sum of Rs.40,000/-with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization. The appellant / defendant said to have borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/-, by executing a promissory note, dated 09.09.1996, in favour of the plaintiff / respondent herein, on promise to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 18%. Since the defendant / appellant herein failed to repay the entire amount even after several demands in person and followed by a lawyer notice dated 29.08.1998, finding that the defendant / appellant herein has successfully evaded to make any payment even after the acknowledgment of notice, the plaintiff / respondent filed a suit for recovery of the sum of Rs.40,000/-.

4. The defendant also filed her written statement stating that the plaintiff / respondent herein was running a chit company by name, Kovai Thirumalai Raja Chits Corporation in Partnership and the defendant subscribed to the Chits. While so, the plaintiff had taken blank pronotes with the signature of the defendant. Even though the defendant subsequently discharged the chit amount, the blank pronotes obtained from the defendant has been fabricated as if a private loan was borrowed from the plaintiff, when no such private loan was borrowed. On that basis, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. During the enquiry, it came to know that the defendant / appellant herein has not produced any evidence to prove her case, because, when there was a lawyer's notice, dated 29.08.1998, issued by the plaintiff/respondent herein asking the defendant to make the repayment of the amount mentioned therein, even after the acknowledgment of the notice, no reply was sent rebutting the contents of the notice. However, by considering the respective contentions raised on both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of the amount with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs.40,000/-from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree, by holding that the defendant had admitted her signature in the suit pronotes and therefore, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted.

6. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the learned First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, in A.S.No.53 of 2004. The learned First Appellate Court has framed the following questions for consideration.

1) Whether the trial Court is right in drawing the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the present case?

2) Whether the trial Court is right in doing so despite the failure of the plaintiff to prove the passing of consideration under the suit pronote?

3) Whether the trial Court has failed to consider that the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove the passing of the consideration under the suit pronote and on his failure to do so, the trial Court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the plaintiff?

4) Whether the trial Court is right in decreeing the suit without considering the status of the plaintiff as one of the partners in one of the financial concerns in which the defendant has subscribed to chit groups?

5) Whether the trial Court has failed to consider the defendant's plea that the signature obtained in the course of the said chit group is utilized, in the light of the document adduced on her side to prove the above aspect?

6) Whether the judgment decree of the trial court is legally and factually sustainable?

7) To what any other relief?

7. The learned First Appellate Court, after a