The main legal point established in the judgment is the rebuttal of the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the burden of proof in establishing consideration for the promissory note.

The defendant in OS.No.4 of 2006, which is a suit for recovery of money, is the appellant. The said suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff based on the promissory note dated 15.12.2002 under which, according to the appellant/defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 12% per annum. According to the plaintiff he issued a notice demanding the repayment on 08.09.2005 to which the defendant sent a reply seeking a copy of the promissory note on 13.09.2005. Immediately on 15.09.2005 a copy of promissory note was sent to the counsel for the defendant and on receipt of the same, nearly after a month i.e. 20.10.2005, the defendant sent a reply claiming that the promissory note has been created by the plaintiff utilizing his signature obtained in blank forms when he was employed with the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the claim in the reply notice is false. Therefore, he is entitled to the decree for repayment for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with 12% interest per annum.

2. The defendant resisted the suit contending that there was no borrowing. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was the proprietor of one Madurakaliamman Textiles and the plaintiff's sister was running a textile business in the name of Spear Tex. The defendant joined as an employee in Spear Tex in the year 1999. Since the defendant's job involved dealing with cash as well as going to banks and looking after the banking transactions of both the businesses the plaintiff had obtained his signature as well as the left thumb impression in blank papers and blank promissory notes as a security.

3. During the course of the employment, they became family friends and the defendant and his father had deposited the title deeds and stood as guarantors for repayment of the loans obtained by the plaintiff in the course of the business. The defendant and his father had also handed over the original documents relating to the properties as security for borrowing made by the plaintiff from the Bank of Madura and thereafter the Corporation Bank.

4. Since the plaintiff defaulted in repayment of loans the property belonging to the defendant and his father were advertised to be sold by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. When the defendant and his father demanded the plaintiff to repay the bank loan by selling his properties, the relationship became strained and hence, the plaintiff utilising the blank signatures obtained from the defendant had created the promissory note and filed the present Suit.

5. On the above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge, framed the following issues for determination in the suit:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as claimed in the plaint?

(2) Whether the suit promissory note is true?

(3) Whether the suit promissory note is created a document and is legally invalid?

(4) Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration?

(5) To what relief that the plaintiff is entitled?

6. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one Shanmugasundaram, who is the attestor to the suit promissory note, as P.W.2. Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exhibits B1 to B4 were marked.

7. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court concluded that the defendant has not establish his defence that the promissory note was prepared using the blank signed papers left by him with the plaintiff, during the course of his employment in the year 1999. upon such conclusion the learned Trial Judge relying upon the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, concluded that the defendant has not let in enough evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negatiable Instrument Act. On such finding the Trial Court, decreed the suit.

8. Aggrieved the defendant is on appeal.

9. I have heard Mr. S.S. Swaminathan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. V