Judgment :- 1. The appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. 89/75 of the Sub Court, Tellicherry. Plaintiff filed the suit for realisation of money on the ground that 1st defendant took a loan of Rs. 10,000/-for his business purposes. In the plaint it is stated that two cheques were issued by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant on 24-4-72 and 29-4-72 for Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively drawn on the Indian Bank, Tellicherry, that cheques were encashed by the 1st defendant and that despite repeated demands he did not repay the amount. Ist defendant contended that the cheques were issued by the plaintiff in repayment of the loans advanced by him in December 1971 for the purchase of a bus and that the plaintiff's claim in the plaint is totally unfounded. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit. 2. 1st defendant had filed O.S. 109/75 against the plaintiff (appellant) for realisation of amount due to him. That suit was also dismissed by the Sub Judge. 1st defendant has not filed any appeal against that decision. 3. In the written statement, 1st defendant's contention is that by giving him the cheques plaintiff was repaying the amount due to him. The question that has to be decided is as to whether the cheques issued by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant evidence a loan transaction as alleged by the plaintiff or repayment of an earlier loan as alleged by the 1st defendant. 4. The burden of proving that the sum advanced to the 1st defendant was towards loan is on the plaintiff. Merely because 1st defendant admitted that he received the cheques it would not follow that he obtained a loan of the said amount. No legal presumption arises when a sum is admitted to have been received, that it was meant to be repaid because the same may have been paid for various reasons. It is for the plaintiff to substantiate his case that the amount covered by the cheques was really given to the 1st defendant as a loan. 5. All payments by cheques are prima facie indicative of the fact that they are issued to extinguish an existing debt and not to create a new one. A cheque issued to a person by itself is not indicative of the fact that money was lent to him. 5. All payments by cheques are prima facie indicative of the fact that they are issued to extinguish an existing debt and not to create a new one. A cheque issued to a person by itself is not indicative of the fact that money was lent to him. On the other hand, it is prima facie evidence of the repayment of money owed by the drawer to the payee. Of course, it is always open to the plaintiff to establish that the payment of the amount by cheque was in fact a loan to the 1st defendant. In this context, it is apposite to refer to Sangappa Basappa Gogi v. Chidananda Baswantraya Aski. (I.L.R. (1980) 2 Karnataka 1133) wherein it is held as follows: "A cheque drawn, presented and paid is by itself no evidence of any money lent or advanced by the drawer to the payee. It may be a prima facie evidence to extinguish an existing debt, however, not to create a new one. However, it is open to the drawer to show by other evidence that the cheque was in fact loaned to the payee. A mere issue of a Cheque in favour of the payee, by itself will not be evidence of a loan even if the cheque is encashed by the payee. That it was loaned to the payee must be proved by the drawer by other evidence. The burden is upon the person who sets up a case of loan based on the issuance of a cheque to establish by other evidence that it was a loan to the payee." 6. The burden of proving that the sum paid as per the cheque was towards a loan is always on the plaintiff. In Bihari Lal v. Lata Chandu Lal (A.I.R.1939 Lahore 386) it has been held as follows: "When a sum is admitted to have been received, there is no legal presumption that it was meant to be repaid. The payment may have been made for various reasons and it is for the person who comes to Court and sues for recovery of the sum of money to prove that it was meant to be repaid". Merely because 1st defendant admitted receipt of the cheques it would not follow that he received the amount as a loan. The payment may have been made for various reasons and it is for the person who comes to Court and sues for recovery of the sum of money to prove that it was meant to be repaid". Merely because 1st defendant admitted receipt of the cheques it would not follow that he received the amount as a loan. As the burden is always on the plaintiff in a suit where he claims amounts due to him from the defendant to substantiate his case, in the absence of evidence to prove the alleged loan given to the 1st defendant, mere issuance of cheques will not raise any presumption in his favour. 7. Plaintiff examined as P.W.1 admitted that he used to keep regular accounts and that the details of amount borrowed and lent by him would find a place in those accounts. In the next breath he stated that the amount due from the 1st defendant will not find a place in his accounts. P.W.1' s attempt to clarify the position in re-examination does not inspire confidence. Counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that as 1st defendant's suit has been dismissed plaintiff's case should have been accepted by the court below. There is no warrant for the above proposition as it is elementary that plaintiff should have established his case by cogent and impressive evidence. From Ext. A6 pass book it is seen that plaintiff was having sufficient cash balance to issue a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- on 24-4-72 and there was really no necessity for issuing two cheques on two different dates. From the evidence in the case it can be seen that the court below has rightly found that the plaintiff's explanation that he wanted some money to be retained with him for purchasing copra does not appear to be convincing. Issuance of two cheques on two different dates is suggestive of repayment of a loan rather than advancement of a loan. 8. In the absence of evidence to hold that the cheques were given by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant as a loan it is difficult to accept the contention of the plaintiff. As already pointed out, no presumption can be drawn that the two cheques given to the 1st defendant evidence the fact that the 1st defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff. As already pointed out, no presumption can be drawn that the two cheques given to the 1st defendant evidence the fact that the 1st defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff. In the absence of any legal presumption to that effect, plaintiff ought to have adduced necessary and proper evidence to substantiate his case. As the evidence is found wanting it cannot be said that the court below went wrong in dismissing the suit. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the court below. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.