The legal presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be raised in favor of the plaintiff upon due execution of a promissory note, and the defendant must rebut these presumptions with relevant and acceptable evidence.

The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.10 of 2006 before the first appellate Court in A.S.No.2 of 2008 Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram, is the appellant herein.

2. The second appeal arose under the following circumstances.

3. The appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff are known persons. Plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.10 of 2006 with the allegations that on 19.02.2003, she has advanced Rs.1,00,000/- at 18% interest under Ex.A1 to the defendant. Since no amount was paid inspite of notice under Ex.A2 document, the suit has been filed.

4. The suit has been resisted by the appellant/defendant filing a written statement contending that no amount as alleged was borrowed from the respondent/plaintiff on 19.02.2003. Actually, the defendant's wife Kaliammal on 26.04.1999 borrowed Rs.60,000/- from Muthumari and subsequently, on 30.06.1999 she borrowed Rs.40,000/- and on 21.11.2004, Kaliammal has paid Rs.1,20,600/- to the plaintiff. While the matters stood thus, on 03.12.2004, plaintiff's brother Kottai @ Muniasamy criminally intimidated Kaliammal and thereafter, Kaliammal lodged a police complaint and the police had supported the plaintiff and forcefully obtained a blank paper with the signature from defendant and his wife.

5. On these divergent pleadings necessary issues were framed. The suit was tried. The Trial Court appreciating the enormous oral and documentary evidence let in, concentrating very much on the cross-examination of P.W.1, came to the conclusion that due execution of the promissory note has not been proved and thus dismissed the suit.

6. Thereafter, the plaintiff carried the matter to the next Appellate Court/Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram, in A.S.No.2 of 2008. The learned appellate Judge reappraised the evidence and viewed the evidence from a different perspective. It take into account the legal effect and consequences of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act and held that the plaintiff had proved due execution of promissory note and that has resulted in arising of the legal presumptions under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it had rejected the case of the defendant and vacated the decree and judgment of the trial Court and substituted with its own judgment and decree.

7. Now this time, the defendant was driven to this Court. That is how this second appeal is before us.

8. For the purpose of the second appeal, the then Honourable Judge framed the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the 1st appellate Court is right in picking holes in the defendant case and decreed the suit when plaintiff has failed to prove the passing of consideration?

2. Whether the 1st appellate Court is right in allowing the appeal though defendant has rebutted the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?"

9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned first appellate Court Judge ought not to have raised the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Admission is the best form of proof. Admissions of P.W.1 in her cross probabilised the case of the appellant. P.W.1 is not certain as to the scribe of the promissory note. She confirmed the complaint given to the police and to the revenue authorities by the appellant. At various place of her deposition, she gave inconsistent answers. Her cross-examination completely thrashed down the case of the plaintiff.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that what was admitted is only signature of the defendant in Ex.A1. It is not equivalent to proof of the entire document. The version of the defendant is not that his signatures were obtained in a blank promissory note, but obtained in a blank paper. The very execution of the promissory note is disputed. In the circumstances, plaintiff has to establish that the defendant did receive consideration. In this resp