Judgment 1. Theunsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The defendant executed a pronote on 16.2.1977 for a sum of Rs.2,600 undertaking to pay interest at 12% per annum on demand. The defendant is an agriculturist and, as such, interest in claimed at 9% per annum. The defendant has properties worth more than Rs.20,000 and his annual income is also more than Rs.5,000 and, as such, he is not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. The suit could not be filed because of the moratorium period between 16.2.1977 and 13.6.1979. The suit is not barred by time. 3. The defendant resisted the suit, stating that the document is not supported by consideration. The defendant, his father and brother received a sum of Rs.4,000 from one Rajavelu on 5.8.1975 and executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage. Though the deed was styled as a bogiam, the defendant did not surrender possession and continued to enjoy the land. The mortgagee wanted only interest on Rs.4,000 in the shape of paddy. The mortgagee on 6.7.1976 received the bogiam amount of Rs.4,000 and assigned the same in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff after getting the assignment, requested the defendant to pay interest in the shape of paddy at 5 bags per year. On 16.2.1977, the defendant wanted to pay the principal amount of Rs.4,000 and got the bogiam amount of discharge. The plaintiff wanted the interest to be paid for two years in the shape of paddy and the value was calculated and it came to Rs. 1,300. The plaintiff wanted the defendant to execute the pronote for Rs.2,600 i.e., for the double amount. The defendant is also entitled to claim benefit under Act 50 of 1982. The plaintiff filed a reply statement, denying the averments made by the defendant and the defendant is not entitled to claim benefit under Act 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982. 4. The trial court framed 3 issues and one additional issue and on behalf of the plaintiff. Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked and P.W.I was examined. On the side of the defendant, D. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 4. The trial court framed 3 issues and one additional issue and on behalf of the plaintiff. Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked and P.W.I was examined. On the side of the defendant, D. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 1,300 with proportionate costs and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.59 of 1984 on the file or Sub Court, Villupuram, and the appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred the present second appeal. 5. The plaintiff/appellant raised the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the lower appellate court is right in law in omitting to invoke the presumption under Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (ii) Whether the lower appellate court is right in law in omitting to note that what was pleaded was given a go bye and a new case had been set up in evidence. 6. The points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the suit document is supported by consideration to the entire extent. (2) Whether the suit document came into existence under the circumstances stated by the defendant. (3) To what relief. 7. PointsThe defendant executed Ex.A-1 suit pronote for a sum of Rs.2,600. The execution of the document was admitted by the defendant, but, however, he contended that only towards interest of Rs. 1,300 the document was executed for Rs.2,600. It transpired in the evidence that the defendant, his father and his brother received a sum of Rs.4,000 from one Rajavelu and executed bogiam under Ex.B-1 But, however, the lands continued to remain in his enjoyment. The mortgage after receiving Rs.5,000 assigned the bogiam in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff after getting assignment, the defendant agreed to pay interest 15 bags of paddy per year. The bogiam was also discharged subsequently and according to the defendant, the plaintiff insisted that interest should be paid for a period of two years and the paddy rate was calculated at Rs. 130 per bag. 8. When once the execution of the document is admitted, the burden is only upon the defendant to show that it is not supported by consideration to the entire extent. There is a presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the suit documents is supported by consideration and it is a rebuttable one. 130 per bag. 8. When once the execution of the document is admitted, the burden is only upon the defendant to show that it is not supported by consideration to the entire extent. There is a presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the suit documents is supported by consideration and it is a rebuttable one. D.W.2 the scribe has been examined to show that the document was executed under the circumstances stated by the defendant. It is necessary to state that D.W.2 was only a scribe of the document and he is not an attestor. He is a professional document writer. On the basis of the evidence of D.W.2 only, both the courts below came to the conclusion that it is supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 1,300 and gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff. D.W.2 stated that no amount was paid and this being so, there was no necessity to decree the suit for a sum of Rs. 1,300. None of the attestors were examined by the defendants. The burden has been wrongly placed upon the plaintiff. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the decision of this Court in A.Irudayasamy v. V.Perumal Naidu. A.Irudayasamy v. V.Perumal Naidu. A.Irudayasamy v. V.Perumal Naidu. (1997)1 MLJ. 360 : (1997)1 L.W. 474 . for the proposition that, “the High Court under Sec. 100, C.P.C. is entitled to take into consideration the question whether the material evidence and relevant circumstances were considered by the lower courts. This Court is also entitled to consider whether the finding of the lower appellate court is based on evidence, and whether that evidence is based on pleadings. If the finding of the lower appellate court is based only on assumptions or on wrong application of law, and it is not based on evidence or pleadings, this Court is entitled to interfere with that finding” There is no dispute about this proposition. 10. If the finding of the lower appellate court is based only on assumptions or on wrong application of law, and it is not based on evidence or pleadings, this Court is entitled to interfere with that finding” There is no dispute about this proposition. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon another decision of this Court in S.Perumal Chettiar v. T.Santhanam S.Perumal Chettiar v. T.Santhanam S.Perumal Chettiar v. T.Santhanam , 1992 L.W. 225 wherein it is observed that, “though the question whether a statutory presumption is rebutted by the rest of the evidence is a question of fact, the presumption is not left to the discretion of the court, and in every suit on a negotiable instrument, the court shall presume that such instruments were made, drawn, accepted or negotiated for consideration, so much so, it has been held that where the lower court ignored the presumption and found that the document was not supported by consideration, the decision regarding considerations was vitiated.” This decision is applicable to the case on hand. Even in the case cited, the defendant in the written statement pleaded that the promissory note represented the interest due on the mortgages admittedly executed by him. The mere fact that the mortgages were not produced before the court would not make any difference nor would it detract from the effect of the admission made by the defendant in his written statement. In this view, it may be said that even the burden which shifted on the defendant was not discharged by him in view of the clear and categorical admissions made by him. 11. The plaintiff also relied upon the decision of this Court in M.Krishnaswamy Naicker v. S.Radhakrishna Naicker M.Krishnaswamy Naicker v. S.Radhakrishna Naicker M.Krishnaswamy Naicker v. S.Radhakrishna Naicker , 98 L.W. 800 wherein it is observed that “the presumption under Sec.118 is not in respect of consideration mentioned in the negotiable instrument. The presumption is in favour of there being a consideration for the negotiable instrument, any consideration which, is a valid consideration in law”. This decision is also applicable to the case on hand. 12. The defendant has failed to establish the suit document is not supported by consideration. The evidence of D.W.2 supported by consideration. The evidence of D.W.2 alone cannot be safely accepted and acted upon relating to consideration. This decision is also applicable to the case on hand. 12. The defendant has failed to establish the suit document is not supported by consideration. The evidence of D.W.2 supported by consideration. The evidence of D.W.2 alone cannot be safely accepted and acted upon relating to consideration. No reasonable explanation has been given on the part of the defendant for not examining any other person. Simply because the bogiam document was assigned in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently it was discharged, there cannot be any presumption that the suit document was also executed only in lieu of interest. Considering the citations relied upon by the plaintiff and as the burden has not been discharged by the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for. Both the courts below have not appreciated the position of law and because of this, there was miscarriage of justice, calling for interference. 13. For the reasons stated above, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment and the decree of the courts below are modified and the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs throughout. Time for payment two months.