Judgment :- 1. Plaintiff filed the suit on the strength of a dis-honoured cheque Ext.A1 for Rs.4,000/- and interest thereon. His case is that when the cheque was presented it was dis-honoured as per Ext.A-2 memo. Defendant contended that he owed Rs.1,000/- to D.W.2 Sadasivan, that on 18-6-1975 he and D.W.2 approached the plaintiff and demanded Rs.1,250/- as loan and that plaintiff gave Rs.1,000/- to D.W.2 on getting from the defendant a signed cheque leaf. The trial Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,000/- and interest at 6% per annum. Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by the Sub Judge. 2. The Munsiff held that the evidence adduced by both sides is interested and not reliable. The Munsiff found it difficult to accept the testimony of the witnesses examined by both sides and the Sub Judge agreed with the aforesaid finding. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that as the evidence adduced by both sides has been found to be unsatisfactory the Courts below ought to have drawn necessary presumption regarding consideration under S.118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly in view of the fact that the defendant has admitted his signature in the cheque. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that as the cheque is not admitted by the defendant the burden to prove its execution is upon the plaintiff and as both the Courts on appreciation of evidence held that the evidence on his side is not reliable no presumption can be drawn. 4. The presumption under S.118(a) of the Act arises when there is a negotiable instrument which is admitted to have been executed. If the fact of execution itself is in dispute the plaintiff has to prove not only the execution but also passing of the consideration. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff that the amount and the date in Ext.A-1 cheque were written by him. In such a case it is really necessary for the plaintiff to prove the due execution of the cheque. Only when the due execution has been established the presumption under S.118(a) could be raised. In Gurubasappa v. Rudriah (AIR 1969 Mysore 269) the Court held that it was only after due execution of the negotiable instrument was established that the presumption under S.118 could be raised. Only when the due execution has been established the presumption under S.118(a) could be raised. In Gurubasappa v. Rudriah (AIR 1969 Mysore 269) the Court held that it was only after due execution of the negotiable instrument was established that the presumption under S.118 could be raised. As the execution of the cheque was denied by the defendant and as the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was found unsatisfactory the Court cannot draw a presumption under S.118(a) of the Act. In a case where defendant has admitted execution of a negotiable instrument it is entirely upon him to prove lack of consideration and there is no burden on the plaintiff to establish adequate consideration. In such a case when the evidence adduced by both sides is evenly balanced plaintiff can certainly bank upon the presumption under S.118(a) of the Act. But in a case where execution of the negotiable instrument itself is denied and when evidence adduced on both sides is evenly balanced plaintiff cannot rely on the presumption under S.118(a). 5. It is also pertinent to note that in Ext.B-2 notice plaintiff did not specify the amount covered by the cheque. That would show that plaintiff did not have a specific case with regard to the amount mentioned in Ext.A-1 cheque when he issued the notice. As against the concurrent findings of the Courts below I find no reason to interfere. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.