The burden of proof in a suit on a promissory note, the admissibility of the appellant's signature as an admission of the loan, and the presumption of execution of the pro-note under the Indian Stamp Act and the Negotiable Instruments Act.

1. The present second appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam in A.S.No.18 of 2012 dated 17.1.2013, in and by which the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in O.S.No.14 of 2009 dated 20.9.2011, dismissing the suit filed by the respondent herein, were reversed.

2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that when the present second appeal was filed challenging the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court decreeing the suit for recovery of money, the appellant/defendant has taken different grounds, namely, whether the permissive possession could be construed as an exclusive possession of the respondents especially when the title over the suit property was not proved by the respondent; whether the possession in part of the suit property is construed as the possession of the entire suit properties; whether the respondents could claim adverse possession against the appellants especially when they claimed title over the suit properties; whether the permissive occupants is entitled for injunction against the true owners especially when the suit is one for bare injunction and whether the suit for bare injunction without declaration of title is maintainable especially when the title is disputed by the appellants, however, after noticing the mistake in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal which, as per Section 100(3) of Civil Procedure Code, shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal, has filed the additional grounds of appeal, raising the following two substantial questions of law:-

''(1) Whether the initial burden to prove the passing of consideration in a suit on promissory note is on the defendant/appellant though the defendant admitted his signature alone in the promissory note?

(2) Whether the suit on promissory note could be decreed merely based on the admission of the signature alone in the promissory note by the defendant/appellant without examining any witness or scribe to the alleged pronote by the plaintiff?''

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, heavily assailing the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court, submitted that when the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of the pro-note dated 15.5.2006 stating that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-from the respondent's wife Mrs. Banumathi for his family and business expenses with an undertaking to repay the same at 12% interest per annum and thereupon executed the pro-note, Ex.A4 with his signature appended thereto, for not paying the amount either towards principal or interest to the respondent, his client has filed a detailed written statement denying the alleged borrowal of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent's wife Mrs. Banumathi on 15.5.2006 and agreeing to repay the same at 12% interest per annum. He further pleaded that it was the further case of the appellant that he did crusher business with the respondent and the said business was run in the name of the appellant alone. For running the business, both the appellant and the respondent had invested a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-each. However, on 15.5.2006, the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent and as the respondent's wife was running finance business, the appellant signed the blank pro-note and gave it to the respondent. Subsequently, the appellant again borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 5.6.2006, again a further sum of Rs.50,000/-on 8.7.2006 and once again a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/-on 2.10.2006. Thereafter, the appellant was paying the interest regularly at 24% per annum. However, out of the profit in the crusher business, the appellant's share of profit of Rs.3,00,000/-was taken by the respondent. Later on, the appellant's wife also further gave a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-to the respondent that came out of the profit in the crusher business and claimed that the entire