Presumptions regarding consideration in negotiable instruments are rebuttable, necessitating proof from both parties, especially where the plaintiff's admissions undermine their claim.

JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

This appeal is filed by the defendants in a suit for realisation of money on the basis of a promissory note.

2. According to the plaintiff, the son-in-law of appellant No.1, Mr.

Anil Prasad as well as the plaintiff were personally known to each other for so many years. By using the said acquaintance, in February 1999 the appellants approached the plaintiff/respondent and demanded an amount of Rs.2 lakhs for discharging certain debts of said Shri Anil Prasad. The respondent/plaintiff arranged an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- and gave it to the defendants on 8.2.1999. On receipt of the amount, the appellants executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent in own handwriting of appellant No.2 agreeing to repay the amount on demand. The amount was not repaid inspite of demand. A notice was issued on 20.4.1999 through his lawyer and even though it was accepted, they did not send any reply or repay the amount. Accordingly, the suit was filed for realisation of the said amount with interest totalling to Rs.2,10,428/-.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it was contended that the first appellant is not the father-in-law, but the father of appellant No.2. True that Shri Anil Prasad is the husband of appellant No.2, but they denied the averment in the plaint that the plaintiff is personally known to them and stated that they have no acquaintance with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was having some transactions with Shri Anil Prasad and the plaintiff is a ration dealer and that he is having some money lending business also. Shri Anil Prasad and the plaintiff were neighbours and the plaintiff has given some money to some other strangers who are known to Shri Anil Prasad. Shri Anil Prasad was only a mediator for the transactions. He went abroad in 1998 for employment. The plaintiff, after some time, informed the defendants that he has to get some money for Shri Anil Prasad and he exerted pressure on the defendants. The matter was discussed with Shri Anil Prasad through telephone and it was told that there are some amounts due to the plaintiff and that amounts had to be given by some other strangers for which he is bound to pay back the amount. It was also told that the amount may come to Rs.75,000/- in total. The matter was discussed at the office of an advocate at Mavelikkara where the plaintiff was having some acquaintance. The defendants were also called to that office and were asked to give some security for the amount. In this juncture the promissory note alleged in the plaint was executed in that office. When the plaintiff sent the legal notice, immediately the defendants contacted the plaintiff and it was told by the plaintiff that he will not initiate any legal proceedings on the basis of the notice issued, and hence no reply has been sent from the part of the defendants. It was contended that no payment on the basis of the promissory note was made by the plaintiff and no single rupee has been received by the defendants and hence consideration is lacking. They also denied the transaction said to have been made on 8.2.1999 as alleged in the plaint and there was no necessity for the defendants to take a loan from the plaintiff.

4. Evidence was adduced by both sides and the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exts.A1 to A4 have been marked. The appellant No.1 was examined as D.W.1. The court below finally decreed the suit as prayed for, against which this appeal is filed.

5. Before us, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri G.P.Shinod submitted that there was no transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants. This fact was admitted by the plaintiff in the cross examination. He plainly admitted that no amount was paid to the defendants on 8.2.1999 and there was no money transaction between them. In the light of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff himself, it can be seen that the promissory note lacks consideration.

6. The court below, after adverting to the evidence of P.W.1, was of