JUDGMENT 1. - This is a civil first appeal filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 5.3.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barmer, by which the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for Rs. 1,20,000/- u/O. 37 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC with costs against the appellant-defendant and further allowed interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount from the date of presentation of the plaint upto the passing of the decree. 2. The facts giving rise to this first appeal are as follows : That plaintiff-respondent filed a suit in the Court of Additional District Judge, Barmer on 11.11.1986 against the appellant-defendant for recovery of Rs. 1,20,000/- a/O. 37 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC on the basis of the Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and receipt (Ex. 2) dated 21.1.1984 stating that appellant-defendant executed Ex. 1 Promissory Note and Ex. 2 Receipt in favour of the plaintiff-respondent after settling the old account. He has further stated that appellant-defendant is a Contractor and has been taking the building contracts and for that purpose, he used to take loan time to time from the plaintiff-respondent and after clearing the old account, the said Promissory Note and Receipt Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 respectively were executed by the defendant-appellant on 21.1.1984 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent for Rs. 90,400/-. It is further stated that on this amount of Rs. 90,400/-, Rs. 29,600/- as interest @ 12% p.a. has further been charged and, therefore, plaintiff-respondent claims Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs. 90,400/- as principal amount and Rs. 29,600/- as interest). After filing of the suit, the appellant-defendant filed an application on 19.2.1987 a/O. 37 R. 3 CPC with the prayer that he may be allowed to defend the suit and this prayer was granted to him and, thereafter, he filed a written statement on 26.4.1988. In his written statement, appellant-defendant has alleged that he did not execute alleged Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and Receipt (Ex. 2) on 21.1.1984 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and no dues were outstanding against him and both Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and Receipt (Ex. 2) are forged one. Since the alleged Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and Receipt (Ex. In his written statement, appellant-defendant has alleged that he did not execute alleged Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and Receipt (Ex. 2) on 21.1.1984 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and no dues were outstanding against him and both Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and Receipt (Ex. 2) are forged one. Since the alleged Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and Receipt (Ex. 2) are not properly stamped, therefore, they are not admissible in evidence as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and from this point of view also, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Further, the plaintiff-respondent is a money lender and has been doing the business of money lending and since the plaintiff-respondent has not obtained the money lending license, his suit is also not maintainable as per the provisions of Sections 22 & 23 of the Money Lending Act, 1963. It is further alleged that father of the plaintiff-respondent-Deep Singh is a close friend of the defendant-appellant and both used to do business of taking building contracts jointly or in partnership and in the year 1970, when the defendant-appellant was doing the business of taking building contracts, at that time, the father of the plaintiff-respondent-Deep Singh used to advance loan to the defendant-appellant for doing the contract works. The father of the plaintiff while advancing money on loan to the defendant-appellant, put a condition that defendant-appellant should submit blank Promissory Note and Receipt to Deep Singh and in these circumstances, blank Promissory Note and Receipt duly signed by the defendant-appellant were given to the father of the plaintiff-respondent. The said blank Promissory Note and Receipt though demanded by the defendant-appellant many times, but the same were not handed over to him by the father of the plaintiff-respondent. In the year 1980, defendant-appellant took some contracts and the father of the plaintiff-respondent expressed desire to become benami partner and it was decided that the plaintiff-respondent would look after the said works on behalf of his father and the defendant-appellant agreed to execute the said contracts with the partnership of Deep Singh, having 50% share and agreement Ex. A-1 was executed in this respect on 20.8.1980. During the subsistence of this partnership, some dispute arose and the same was settled on 28.8.1982 (Ex. A-2). A-1 was executed in this respect on 20.8.1980. During the subsistence of this partnership, some dispute arose and the same was settled on 28.8.1982 (Ex. A-2). In this partner-ship, the plaintiff respondent and his father suffered loss and they wanted that loss should also be shared by the appellant-defendant and on denial by defendant-appellant, both became annoyed with the defendant-appellant and they threatened that they would certainly recover the amount from the defendant-appellant and in these circumstances, Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and Receipt (Ex. 2) were forged by the plaintiff-respondent. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional. District Judge framed the following issues on 24.5.1988 : " 1- vk;k izfroknh us rkjh[k 21-1-1984 dks oknh dk fiNyk fglkc dj :i;s 90]400@& vius tqEes ckdh fudyus eatwj dj 1@& :i;k C;kt dh lSdM+k ekgokj nsuk r; dj izksuksV o jlhn eqrnkfo;k rgjhj o rdehy dj nh\     ---------oknh 2- vk;k oknh efu&ySfMax dk O;olk; djrk gSa rFkk euh&ySfMax dh /kkjk 22&23 dh ikyuk u djus ls ;g nkok dkfct [kkfjt ds gSa\     ---------izfroknh 3- vk;k fooknxzLr izksuksV ,oa jlhn iw.kZ eqnzkafdr ugha gksus ls lk{; esa xzkgkz ugha gS\     ---------izfroknh 4- lgk;rk\ " In support of the case, the plaintiff-respondent had examined himself as PW 1 and has produced five documents and similarly, two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defendant-appellant and four documents Ex. A-1 to A-4 have also been exhibited by the defendant-appellant. The learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 5.3.1990 decided issues No. 1 & 3 simultaneously holding that since Ex. 1 Promissory Note and Ex. 2 Receipt have been admitted in evidence, the objection that they have not been properly stamped is not tenable and he has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javer Chand & Ors. v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655 Since during the cross-examination, the defendant-appellant as DW 1 has admitted his signature on the Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and Receipt (Ex. 2), therefore, its execution has been held to be proved by the learned Addl. District Judge. Hence, he decided issues No. 1 & 3 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellant. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the defendant-appellant and thus, by judgment and decree dated 5.3.1990, the learned Addl. 1) and Receipt (Ex. 2), therefore, its execution has been held to be proved by the learned Addl. District Judge. Hence, he decided issues No. 1 & 3 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellant. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the defendant-appellant and thus, by judgment and decree dated 5.3.1990, the learned Addl. District Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent against the appellant-defendant. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5.3.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barmer, the appellant-defendant has filed this first appeal in this Court. 3. In this first appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has mainly challenged the findings given by the learned Additional District Judge on issues No. I & 3. The main arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant are as follows : 1. That the learned Additional District judge has committed a mistake in relying on Ex. 1 Promissory Note and Ex. 2 Receipt as they were not properly stamped and they could not be taken into evidence as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; 2. That in deciding issue No. 1, the learned Additional District Judge has not properly appreciated the contentions of the defendant-appellant made in para 5 of his additional pleas in the written statement and further.he has not appreciated the documents filed by the plaintiff-respondent Ex. 3 to 5 and documents filed by the defendant-appellant Ex. A-1 to A-4 and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge on issue No. 1 are perverse and liable to be set aside. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has submitted that the findings of the learned Addl. District Jude are based on proper appreciation of evidence and they do not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, there is-no substance in this first appeal and the same should be dismissed.Point No. I (Issue No. 3) 5. The learned Additional District Judge in his judgment dated 5.3.1990 has held that since the defendant-appellant has not been able to explain that Ex. 1 has not been properly stamped and furthermore, when it has been admitted in evidence and after examination of the plaintiff, cross-examination has also been done, then, at this stage, the objection that the said document is not properly stamped cannot be considered. 1 has not been properly stamped and furthermore, when it has been admitted in evidence and after examination of the plaintiff, cross-examination has also been done, then, at this stage, the objection that the said document is not properly stamped cannot be considered. In my opinion, the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on this issue do not suffer from many infirmity and they are based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the argument that on the same day when Ex. 1, and Ex. 2 were being exhibited, an objection was made by the counsel for the defendant-appellant through an application, could not be helpful, inasmuch as firstly it has been admitted in evidence and secondly, the defendant-appellant as DW 1 has further admitted .in the cross-examination that both the documents Ex. 1 Promissory Note and Ex. 2 Receipt bear his signatures, therefore, on his admission also, this objection does not prevail now. Hence, the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is rejected and the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge on issue No. 3 are upheld.Point No. 2 (Issue No. 1) 6. This is the main issue on which the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has argued vehemently and has stated that this issue No. 1 has been wrongly decided by the learned Additional District Judge. 7. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, some legal aspect on burden of proof could also be kept in mind. 8. The burden of proof lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it. The expression 'burden of proof' has two different things. It means sometimes that a party is required to prove an allegation before judgment can be given in its favour. It also means that on a contested issue one of the two contending parties has to introduce evidence. In the matter of proof, in a civil case, a defendant cannot take up the same stand as an accused in a criminal case. In civil cases, unlike criminal ones, it cannot be said that the benefit of reasonable doubt must necessarily go to the defendant. The burden of proof lies upon the party either plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. 9. In civil cases, unlike criminal ones, it cannot be said that the benefit of reasonable doubt must necessarily go to the defendant. The burden of proof lies upon the party either plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. 9. In the case of execution of Promissory Note, the legal position is that when once execution of Promissory Note is admitted, thereafter, the burden of proof of passing of consideration lies entirely on the shoulders of promisors. Not only this, it is for the defendant to prove that the document which he purported to execute by signing blank papers was of fundamentally different nature from the documents which he believed he was signing. 10. Keeping the above legal aspects in mind, the controversy in this case is to be threshed out and the evidence led by the parties is to be seen. 11. The plaintiff-respondent as PW 1 has admitted that Ex. 1 Promissory Note and Ex. 2 Receipt were signed by the defendant-appellant and after settling the old account, Rs. 76,500/- were found due as principal and upon that Rs. 13,900/- were charged as interest and thus, a Promissory Note of Rs. 90,400/- was got executed by defendant-appellant in his favour. In cross-examination, he has admitted that when Promissory Note Ex. 1 was got executed by the defendant-appellant, he also gave account in writing. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that Ex. 3, I:x. 4 & Ex. 5 were given to him by the defendant-appellant. Note:-Ex. 3, Ex. 4 & Ex. 5 were produced by the defendant-appellant in the Court when the plaintiff-respondent was being cross-examined in the Court. 12. The defendant-appellant has been examined as DW 1 in this case. Note:--There is a striking feature in this case that the defendant-appellant had been narrating from the beginning upto his examination in chief that he has never executed Ex. 1 Promissory Note and Ex. 2 Receipt on 21.1.1984 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, but he has admitted in his cross-examination that Exs. 1 & 2 bear his signatures. He has stated in his examination in chief that father of the plaintiff-respondent was his friend and he gave to him blank Promissory Note and Receipt and he has also proved Fix. A-1 to A-4. Ex. A-1 is agreement deed, Ex. A-2 is receipt dated 28.8.1982, Ex. 1 & 2 bear his signatures. He has stated in his examination in chief that father of the plaintiff-respondent was his friend and he gave to him blank Promissory Note and Receipt and he has also proved Fix. A-1 to A-4. Ex. A-1 is agreement deed, Ex. A-2 is receipt dated 28.8.1982, Ex. A-3 is a letter written by the father of plaintiff-respondent-Deep Singh and Ex. A-4 contains the details of Accounts. In cross-examination, the defendant-appellant as DW 1 has admitted that signatures A to B and C to D on Ex. 1 & Ex. 2 are of him and Ex. 3, Ex. 4 and Ex. 5 were also written by him. 13. From the above evidence, the learned Additional District Judge while deciding issue No. 1 recorded the following findings:- 1. That the defendant-appellant has admitted the execution of Promissory Note (Ex. 1) and Receipt (Ex. 2) and further he has admitted that Ex. 3, Ex. 4 & Ex. 5, which are in his writing, were given by him to plaintiff-respondent and Ex. 3 was of Rs. 31,000/-, Ex. 4 was of Rs. 23,300/- and Ex. 5 of Rs. 22,200/- total Rs. 76,500/-, the principal amount for which the case of the plaintiff-respondent is that this amount was of old account and interest of Rs. 13,900/- was also charged and thus, defendant-appellant executed Promissory Note Ex. 1 and Receipt Ex. 2 for Rs. 90,400/-. Hence, execution of Ex. 1 Promissory Note and Ex. 2 Receipt dated 21.1.1984 by the defendant-appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent stands proved. 2. That the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that no consideration was passed while Ex. 1 & Ex. 2 were executed, was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge. In coming to this conclusion, the learned Addl. District Judge has relied on the decisions in Shriniwas Pansari v. Hari Prasad, AIR 1983 Patna 326 and Vishanibhar Dayal v. Vishwanath Agarwal, AIR 1985 Allahabad 12 and he has further held that a new contract has arisen with the execution of Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 and the plea that no consideration was passed is not tenable. 3. That the learned Additional District Judge held that what has happened between the father of plaintiff-respondent and defendant-appellant has got no bearing with the dealings with the defendant-appellant and plaintiff-respondent and, therefore, the documents Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 and the plea that no consideration was passed is not tenable. 3. That the learned Additional District Judge held that what has happened between the father of plaintiff-respondent and defendant-appellant has got no bearing with the dealings with the defendant-appellant and plaintiff-respondent and, therefore, the documents Ex. A-1 to A-4 were not helpful to the defendant-appellant. 14. Now, it is to be seen whether the above findings of the learned Additional District judge are correct or not on issue No. 1. 15. In this case, as stated above, the plaintiff has discharged his burden by saying that the defendant-appellant executed Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 in his favour by putting his signatures and this fact has been admitted by the defendant-appellant in his cross-examination as DW 1. The result is that the initial burden which was put on the plaintiff-respondent has been discharged by him and now, the burden lies on the defendant-appellant to rebut to say that in what circumstances he put his signatures on Ex. 1 & Ex. 2. 16. In Adikanda Behera v. Daini Krishna Murthy Patra & Anr., AIR 1983 Orissa 238 , it has been held that under section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if execution of document is admitted a presumption can be drawn that the document was executed for consideration. 17. In K.K. Rm. Muthayee Achi (died) & Anr. v. A.K.Rni.S.Rm. Sabbiah Chettiar & Anr., AIR 1951 Madras 903 , it has been held : "When a person agrees to execute a promissory note for the entire amount found due on looking into the accounts and the amount due under the accounts is agreed to without any dispute by both parties, both of whose accounts have been looked into and a promissory note for the amount due plus certain amount advanced on that date is executed, the transaction is really not one of settlement of accounts, but of ascertainment of the money due, by looking into the accounts, before executing a promissory note for that amount. In a suit, therefore, on the promissory note the Court need not go into the accounts of the parties, item by item." 18. In Jankilal & Ors. In a suit, therefore, on the promissory note the Court need not go into the accounts of the parties, item by item." 18. In Jankilal & Ors. v. Hanuman & Ors., 1969 WLN 568 , it was observed as under: "Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides that until the contrary is proved, every negotiable instrument shall be presumed to have been made or drawn for consideration. Thus, it cannot be a gain-said that the promissory note in question shall be presumed to be with consideration until the contrary is proved." 19. In Bishambhar Dayal & Ors. v. Vishwanath Agarwal, AIR 1985 Allahabad 12 , it was held as under : "In a suit for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note despite the failure of the plaintiff to establish that consideration passed in cash for the promissory note, he may get a decree on the basis of admission or evidence placed on record from the other side provided the same establishes that there was some other kind of consideration in lieu of which the promissory note could be executed. The presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that the promissory note was made for consideration; this does not fail on account merely of the consideration being shown to be not the same as indicated in the promissory note." 20. The above rulings clearly establish the position of law that until the contrary is proved, the presumption shall be made that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. 21. The learned Addl. District Judge was aware of the above position of law and keeping this in mind, he decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellant. In my opinion, his findings on issue No. 1 are based on correct appreciation of law and facts. In this case, when the execution of Ex. I Promissory Note and Ex. 2 Receipt has been admitted by the defendant-appellant himself, heavy burden lies on him to rebut and in my opinion, he has failed to discharge that burden in this case. On the contrary, he has further admitted that Ex. In this case, when the execution of Ex. I Promissory Note and Ex. 2 Receipt has been admitted by the defendant-appellant himself, heavy burden lies on him to rebut and in my opinion, he has failed to discharge that burden in this case. On the contrary, he has further admitted that Ex. 3, 4 & 5 were in his own writing and this is the case of the plaintiff-respondent that the amount, which has been mentioned in Ex. 3, 4 & 5, has been charged by him as principal amount and interest on it and, therefore, the circumstances tinder which Ex. 1 & Ex. 2 were got executed by defendant-appellant in favour of plaintiff-respondent also support the case of the plaintiff-respondent. The argument that blank Promissory Note was given by defendant-appellant to the father of the plaintiff-respondent and the same has been forged by the plaintiff-respondent, cannot be appreciated, in view of the findings that Ex. 3, 4 & 5 fully support the case of the plaintiff-respondent on execution of Ex. 1 & Ex. 2. The learned Addl. District Judge has very rightly rejected the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that the transaction which took place between the father of the plaintiff-respondent and defendant-appellant has no bearing with the execution of I:x. 1 Promissory Note & Ex. 2 Receipt and similarly Ex. A-1 to A-4 are also not helpful to the defendant-appellant, so far as the execution of Ex. 1 & Ex. 2 are concerned. Thus, in this case, the defendant-appellant has failed to prove the burden which was on his part about the execution of Ex. 1 and Ex. 2. Since he has failed to do so, execution of Ex. 1 Promissory Note and Ex. 2 Receipt by him in favour of plaintiff-respondent is duly proved and the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on issue No. 1 are liable to be confirmed and they are confirmed and it is held that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellant. 22. 2 Receipt by him in favour of plaintiff-respondent is duly proved and the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on issue No. 1 are liable to be confirmed and they are confirmed and it is held that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellant. 22. In view of what has been discussed above, it is held that the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge on issues No. 1 & 3 are correct one and therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, this first appeal filed by the appellant-defendant is dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree dated 5.3.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, I3armer.Appeal dismissed. *******