Judgment SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFF apellant herein seeks to challenge the decree dated May 29, 1981 of the learned District judge, Tonk whereby his money suit based on pronote was dismissed. The parties hereinafter shall be referred in the same manner as they were arrayed in the suit. ( 2 ) IN the plaint, it was averred by the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed cash in the sum of RS. 51. 800/- from him on November 2, 1977 and executed pronote and receipt. Out of the borrowed money only Rs. 15,150/- were paid and amount in the sum of rs. 36,650/- was outstanding against the defendant. Prayer to decree the suit was made by the plaintiff. The defendant in the written statement denied the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that frivolous suit was instituted by the plaintiff on account of enmity as the defendant pursuaded C. M. O. , Tonk not to issue licence to the plaintiff for installing Medical Store. It was also averred that the suit was not maintailable as the plaintiff did not produce the licence under the Money Lenders Act. ( 3 ) TRIAL Court framed as many as four issue thus- (i) Whether the defendant borrowed cash in the sum of Rs. 51. 800/-from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff on November 2, 1977? (ii) Whether the defendant has to repay Rs. 36,650/- to the plaintiff ? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is a money lender, if so, what is its effect on the suit ? (iv) Relief ? ( 4 ) THE plaintiff examined himself as PW 1 and produced Udhav Das PW 2 and Prem chand PW 3 and exhibited Pronote Ex. 1 and two receipts Ex. 2 and Ex. 3 whereas the defendant himself appeared in the witness box as DW 1. Learned Trial Court decided all the issues against the plaintiff. ( 5 ) 1 have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. I proceed to consider the contentions issuewise. Issues No. 1 and 2 : ( 6 ) IN para No. 1 of the plaint, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that he lend cash in the sum of Rs. 51,800/- to the defendant and for this purpose Pronote Ex. 1 and Receipt ex. 3 were executed. I proceed to consider the contentions issuewise. Issues No. 1 and 2 : ( 6 ) IN para No. 1 of the plaint, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that he lend cash in the sum of Rs. 51,800/- to the defendant and for this purpose Pronote Ex. 1 and Receipt ex. 3 were executed. But in his statement before the Court the plaintiff deposed that he on october, 14, 1977 lend cash of Rs. 10,000/-and supplied medicines in the sum of Rs 41,800/ -. Udhav Das PW 2, stated that in his presence both the parties had entered into compromise. The plaintiff lend Rs. 10. 000/-in cash, medicines and furniture in the sum of rs. 41,800/- to the defendant on October 14, 1977 and Pronote was executed. Prem Chand pw3, stated that the plaintiff lend cash amount ing to Rs. 10. 000/- in his shop whereas medicines and furniture were handed over to the plaintiff in the shop of the defendant on October 17, 1977. ( 7 ) REFERRING the evidence of the plaintiff learned Counsel Mr. R. P. Agrawal urged that execution of Pronote Ex. 1 stood proved and presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act)applies. Merely because the plaintiff comes forward with a case slightly different from the one mentioned in the Pronote it will not be correct to say that the presumption under the said section does not arise at all. ( 8 ) MR. Sagar Mal Mehta, learned Sr. Advocate on the other hand canvassed that it is well settled that by his own pleading the plaintiff has established that the consideration shown in the Pronote was not the real consideration therefore Section 118 of the Act would not come to his aid. Burden of proving the consideration was still on the plaintiff which he failed to discharge as he did not produce account books and Arbitration award and the trial Court rightly took adverse inference against the plaintiff. Reliance was placed on kundan Lal v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, and Shri Narain v. Chunnilal. ( 9 ) PROVISIONS of Section 118 of the Act evolves following principles: (i) There is presumption that consideration has passed for execution of document. (ii) In order to rebut the presumption the defendant has to prove that no consideration has passed. Reliance was placed on kundan Lal v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, and Shri Narain v. Chunnilal. ( 9 ) PROVISIONS of Section 118 of the Act evolves following principles: (i) There is presumption that consideration has passed for execution of document. (ii) In order to rebut the presumption the defendant has to prove that no consideration has passed. (iii) Even if the plaintiff fails to prove that particular consideration mentioned in the document has passed still presumption continues unless the defendant rebuts the presumption by establishing that no form of consideration has passed. (iv) The presumption can be rebutted by producing definite evidence or by relying on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the flaws in the plaintiffs evidence. Section 118 of the Act provides a special rule of evidence contrary to the case of an ordinary contract. The statutory presumption in favour of there being consideration for every negotiable instrument continues unless it is rebutted. Where cumulative effect of various factors and circumstances has been sufficient to destroy the presumption and to place plaintiff in position where he cannot succeed only on the basis of presumptions, he is required to establish affirmatively by cogent and positive evidence that document sued upon was supported by consideration. ( 10 ) FROM the evidence of the plaintiff it is quite clear that consideration mentioned in Ex 1 was different from the consideration admitted by the plaintiff himself. The defendant did not admit the execution of pronote. The plaintiff in his statement did admit that he maintained accounts of amount paid which he submitted to the Income Tax Department. Witness Udhav Das P. W. 2 in his cross examination deposed that the plaintiff and the defendant both requested him to become Arbitrator by submitting written application. He accepted their request and passed an award in black and white. The witness admitted that the award was in his possession. Admittedly the plaintiff did not produce the account books and the award before the Trial Court. In Kundan La! He accepted their request and passed an award in black and white. The witness admitted that the award was in his possession. Admittedly the plaintiff did not produce the account books and the award before the Trial Court. In Kundan La! v. Custodian Evacuee Property (supra) their lordships of the Supreme Court observed thus : (Para 5)"a plaintiff, who says that he had sold certain goods to the defendant and that a promissory note was executed as consideration for goods and that he is in possession of the relevant account books to show that he was in possession of the goods sold and that the sale was effected for a particular consideration, should produce the said account books, for he is in possession of the same and the defendant certainly cannot be expected to produce his documents. In those circumstances, if such a relevant evidence is withheld by the plaintiff, section 114 enables the Court to draw a presumption to the effect that, if produced the said account books would be unfavourable to the plaintiff. This presumption, if raised by a Court, can under certain circumstances rebut the presumption of law raised under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. "in Shri Narain v. Chunnila! (supra) the Division Bench of this Court (Honble Wanchoo, c. J. and Dave, J.) indicated in para 6 thus-"it is settled law that when the execu-tion of a document is admitted by the executant thereof, the burden of proving want of consideration lies on him but if the plaintiff pleads a consideration different from that which is mentioned in the document sued upon then the burden still rests upon the plaintiff to prove the consideration pleaded by him. "in para 11 of the said judgment it was fuvther observed that-"since the burden of proving the consideration was still on the appellants, it was their duty to produce their account books to show that so much amount was really payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs on account of transaction between them and that Ex. P1 was written for good consideration. " ( 11 ) AS the plaintiff failed to produce account books and arbitration award, the Trial court rightly drew adverse inference against the plaintiff by involving Section 114 of the indian Evidence Act. I do not see any illegality in the finding of Issue Nos. P1 was written for good consideration. " ( 11 ) AS the plaintiff failed to produce account books and arbitration award, the Trial court rightly drew adverse inference against the plaintiff by involving Section 114 of the indian Evidence Act. I do not see any illegality in the finding of Issue Nos. 1 and 2 and 1 hold that the said issues were rightly decided by the trial Court. ( 12 ) THE decision of Issues No. 1 and 2 goes into the root of the matter therefore it seems altogether unnecessary to go into the question of Issue No. 3 whether the plaintiff was a money lender or not? Even if this issue is decided in plaintiffs favour, his suit cannot be decreed. Since the consideration of Ex. 1 is not proved, it is not possible to give any relief to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs suit was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. .