Judgment :- These three appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam in O.S. Nos. 48 and 49 of 1984 and 8 of 1986, dated 2-2-1987. 2. The suit in O.S. No. 48 of 1984 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 31,937/- with subsequent interest from out of the estate of Rasu Reddiar held by the defendants. 3. The suit in O.S. No. 49 of 1984 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 31, 875/- with subsequent interest from out of the estate of Rasu Reddiar held by the defendants. 4. The suit in O.S. No. 8 of the 1986 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,437.50 with subsequent interest from out of the estate of Rasu Reddiar held by the defendants. 5. The trial Court tried the above three suits along with the suit in O.S. No. 53 of 1984 and by a common judgment dismissed the suits in O.S. Nos. 48 and 49 of 1984 and 8 of 1986 with costs and decreed the suit in O.S. No. 53 of 1984 with costs. There is no appeal preferred against the decree in O.S. No. 53 of 1984. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 48 of 1984 preferred an appeal A.S. No. 112 of 1988 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 49 of 1984 preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 113 of 1988 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 8 of 1986 preferred an appeal in Transferred Appeal Suit No. 356 of 1989. 6. The averments in the plaint in O.S. No. 48 of 1984 can be summarised as follows. The deceased Rasu Reddiar borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff on 5-5-1981 on condition to repay it on demand with interest at 12 % per annum and executed the suit promissory note. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, there was no repayment. Rasu Reddiar died on 26-12-1982. The first defendant is the wife of Rasu Reddiar. Defendants 2 to 4 are his sons and fifth defendant is his daughter. The sixth defendant is his mother. The defendants had inherited the properties of Rasu Reddiar and they are liable to repay the suit loan. The defendants are not entitled to the benefit of Debt Relief Act. The plaintiff has asked for 9% interest as per Act 8 of 1973. The sixth defendant is his mother. The defendants had inherited the properties of Rasu Reddiar and they are liable to repay the suit loan. The defendants are not entitled to the benefit of Debt Relief Act. The plaintiff has asked for 9% interest as per Act 8 of 1973. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 31,937/- with subsequent interest from out of the estate of Rasu Reddiar held by the defendants. 7. The first defendant had filed the written statement on behalf of the defendants and it is contended as follows . Plaintiff is the sister of late Rasu Reddiar. Rasu Reddiar owned large properties and the plaintiff tried to grab, it , but failed in her attempts. Last such attempt made by the plaintiff was to give her daughter Sulochana in marriage to Rasu Reddiar as his second wife and it failed and hence she and her husband were making plans. Without knowing this, Rasu Reddiar asked for a loan of Rs. 30,000/- from them and using the opportunity, the family members of the plaintiff obtained the signature of Rasu Reddiar in three blank stamped promissory notes and gave him Rs. 30,000/-. Later, on a promise to return the three signed promissory notes, adding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards interest, the plaintiff obtained a mortgage deed in her favour for Rs. 40,000/- executed by Rasu Reddiar on 4-7-1981. After executing the mortgage deed, Rasu Reddiar demanded several times the plaintiff and her husband to return the blank signed promissory notes executed, by him but they did not return them and wantonly delayed it. In view of the close relationship, Rasu Reddiar did not insist for the immediate return of them. Suddenly, Rasu Reddiar expired on 26-12-1982. Taking advantage of it, the three blank singed promissory notes were filled in and fabricated one in favour of the plaintiff, the other in favour of her husband and the remaining one in favour of the daughter of the plaintiff. Apart from this suit, the plaintiff's husband and her daughter had filed two separate suits on those promissory notes. Rasu Reddiar demanded a loan of Rs. Apart from this suit, the plaintiff's husband and her daughter had filed two separate suits on those promissory notes. Rasu Reddiar demanded a loan of Rs. 30,000/- only and he was asked to execute a mortgage deed and since Rasu Reddiar was in urgent need of money, he was asked to execute three blank stamped promissory notes and the money was paid and within 15 days, as demanded by them, adding a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards interest, Rasu Reddair had executed a mortgage deed for Rs. 40,000/- . Inspite of repeated demands, they had not returned the blank signed promissory notes and later they had fabricated them. In view of the execution of the mortgage deed, the promissory notes ought to be considered as discharged. All the three blank signed promissory notes were filed on and fabricated at the same time. The family of the plaintiff had no means to advance one lakh rupees as loan at the same time. There was no necessity for Rasu Reddiar to obtain loan totalling a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in three months' time. Further, plaintiff, her husband and their daughter were living together and that circumstances would prove the fabrication of the promissory notes. There was enmity because of the refusal to sell the rice mill belonging to the defendants to the plaintiff family. The sixth defendant had executed a Release Deed, dated 27-8-1984, releasing her right over her share in favour of the first defendant and her son and she was unnecessary party to the suit. 8. The plaint averments in O.S. No. 49 of 1984 are summarised as follows. The deceased Rasu Reddiar borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff on 20-5-1981 on condition to repay it on demand with interest at 12% per annum and executed the suit promissory note. There was no repayment and the plaintiff demanded the repayment by Notice, dated 12-4-1982 and Rasu Reddiar sent a reply on 25-5-1982 through his Advocate. The averments in the reply are not true and there was no repayment. Rasu Reddiar died on 26-12-1982. The first defendant is the wife of Rasu Reddiar. Defendants 2 to 4 are his sons and the fifth defendant is his daughter. The sixth defendant is his mother. The defendants had inherited the properties of Rasu Reddiar and they are liable to repay the suit loan. Rasu Reddiar died on 26-12-1982. The first defendant is the wife of Rasu Reddiar. Defendants 2 to 4 are his sons and the fifth defendant is his daughter. The sixth defendant is his mother. The defendants had inherited the properties of Rasu Reddiar and they are liable to repay the suit loan. They are not entitled to the benefits of Debt Relief Act. The plaintiff had asked for 9% interest as per Act 8 of 1973. The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 31,875/- with subsequent interest from out of the estate of Rasu Reddiar held by the defendants. 9. The defendants in this suit are the same as in O.S. No. 48 of 1984 and the first defendant had filed the written statement on behalf of the defendants and the averments in the written statement are similar as in O.S. No. 48 of 1984. 10. The plaint averments in O.S. No. 8 of 1986 are summarised as follows : The deceased Rasu Reddiar borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff on 25-4-1981 on condition to repay it on demand with interest at 12% per annum and executed the suit promissory note. Inspite of repeated demands, there was no repayment. Rasu Reddiar died on 26-12-1982. The first defendant is the wife of the Rasu Reddiar. Defendants 2 to 4 are his sons and fifth defendant is his daughter. The defendants had inherited the properties of Rasu Reddiar and they are liable to repay the suit loan. The defendants are not entitled to the benefits of Debt Relief Act. The plaintiff had asked for 9% interest as per Act 8 of 1973. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,437.50 with subsequent interest from out of the estate of Rasu Reddiar held by the defendants. 11. The first defendant had filed a written statement on behalf of the defendants and it is contended as follows . It is true that Rasu Reddiar had executed the suit promissory note. But, he had not received the consideration of Rs. 10,000/- as mentioned in it. He received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only from the father of the plaintiff and as per his direction and village custom, Rasu Reddiar had executed the suit promissory note for double the amount. The suit promissory note loan got discharged by another document. But, he had not received the consideration of Rs. 10,000/- as mentioned in it. He received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only from the father of the plaintiff and as per his direction and village custom, Rasu Reddiar had executed the suit promissory note for double the amount. The suit promissory note loan got discharged by another document. Rasu Reddiar had also executed two other promissory notes, one in favour of the plaintiff's father and one in favour of plaintiff's mother for a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- and later the plaintiff's father pressurised Rasu Reddiar to execute a mortgage deed mortgaging his property for the loan amount of Rs. 40,000/- and promised to return the promissory notes duly discharged. Rasu Reddiar accordingly executed a registered mortgage deed for Rs. 40,000/- on 4-7-1981 in favour of the plaintiff's mother boundarammal. Actually there was no consideration passed for mortgage and it was executed only in discharge of three promissory notes. After execution of mortgage deed, Rasu Reddiar demanded return of the promissory notes duly discharged and the plaintiff's father told him that promissory notes were in his house and he would search and return them later. Because of the close relationship, Rasu Reddiar did not insist for immediate return of them. In view of the execution of mortgage deed, all the promissory notes got discharged. There was enmity because of the refusal to sell the rice mill belonging to the defendants to the plaintiff's family and taking advantage of the available promissory notes, the plaintiff had filed the suit out of malice. 12. The trial Court, by the common judgment, had dismissed all the above three suits and the present appeals arise out of them. In this common judgment, the parties are described as arrayed in the suits. 13. The points for consideration in all the three appeals are ; (1) Whether the promissory notes in the three suits are true, valid and supported by consideration. (2) Whether the liability under the suit promissory notes got discharged by execution of mortgage deed by Rasu Reddiar as contended by the defendants. 14. POINT NO. 1. Ex. A1 is the promissory note, dated 5-5-1981, for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- executed by Rasu Reddiar in favour of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 48 of 1984. Ex. A-2 is the promissory note, dated 20-5-1981 for a sum of Rs. 14. POINT NO. 1. Ex. A1 is the promissory note, dated 5-5-1981, for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- executed by Rasu Reddiar in favour of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 48 of 1984. Ex. A-2 is the promissory note, dated 20-5-1981 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- executed by Rasu Reddiar in favour of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 49 of 1984. Ex. A-3 is the promissory note, dated 25-4-1981, for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- executed by Rasu Reddiar in favour of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 8 of 1986. Since Rasu Reddiar is dead, the plaintiffs seek to recover the amount due on their respective promissory notes executed by Rasu Reddiar from out of the estate of Rasu Reddiar held by the defendants. The defendants, who are the legal representatives of Rasu Reddiar, have filed written statements in all the three suits and they have admitted that Rasu Reddiar had signed in all the three promissory notes and they have contended in their written statements in O.S. No. 48 and 49 of 1984 that the family members of the plaintiffs obtained the signature of Rasu Reddiar in three blank stamped promissory notes and gave him a sum of Rs. 30,000/- only and later, on a promise to return the three signed promissory notes, adding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards interest, they had obtained a mortgage deed for Rs. 40,000/- executed by Rasu Reddiar in favour of Soundarmmal on 4-7-1981 and when Rasu Reddiar demanded, they did not return the three signed promissory notes as promised and after the death of Rasu Reddiar, they filled in and fabricated the three promissory notes in their favour. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiffs contends that the case of the defendants cannot be believed and he relies on the following circumstances to substantiate his contention. The defendants had filed their earliest written statement on 5-6-1984 in O.S. No. 8 of 1986, which was a transferred suit to the file of Subordinate Judge from the file of District Munsif, Vridhachalam and in that written statement, the defendants, after admitting the execution of the suit promissory note, had stated that Rasu Reddiar did not receive the consideration of Rs., 10,000/- as mentioned in it and received a sum of Rs. 5000/- only and as per the direction he had executed promissory note for double the amount and he had received a total sum of Rs. 40000/- and executed two other promissory notes in favour of the members of the plaintiffs' family. So, as per this written statement, Rasu Reddiar had received a sum of Rs. 40000/- as consideration for all the three promissory notes. The defendants in their written statements filed in O.S. No. 48 and 49 of 1984 had stated that Rasu Reddiar asked for a loan of Rs. 30000/- and received a sum of Rs. 30000/- only and had signed in all the three blank stamped promissory notes and after the death of Rasu Reddiar, the three promissory notes were filled in and fabricated by the family members of the plaintiffs. So, as per the written statement in the above two suits, Rasu Reddiar received a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in total as consideration for all the three promissory notes and the plea of fabrication of the promissory notes by the defendants had been raised only in these two written statements. 16. The next circumstance relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs is the reply notice sent by Rasu Reddiar through his Advocate to the plaintiff in O.S. No. 49 of 1984 on 25-5-1982, which is marked as Ex.A-6. The defendants contend that Rasu Reddiar did not give instruction to the Advocate to send Ex. A6 reply and disputed the same. PW 6 is Advocate Ramalingam who had issued Ex. A6 reply and according to him, he was a practising lawyer at Vridhachalam and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 49 of 1984, viz. Chinnasamy Reddiar, issued Ex.A-4 notice, dated 12-4-1982, to Rasu Reddiar demanding payment of money due under Ex. A-2 promissory note and as per the instruction of Rasu Reddiar he had sent Ex. A6 reply. D.W. 1, the first defendant, who is the widow of Rasu Reddiar, had stated that her husband did not instruct PW 6 to give Ex. A6 reply. It is pertinent to note that according to DW 1, her husband instrucuted PW 6 to give Ex A 21 notice on his behalf to Chinnasamy Reddiar on 20-5-1982 and she had only denied Ex. A6 reply. According to PW 6 Advocate Ramalingam, on the instruction of Rasu Reddiar only he had sent Ex. A 2 1 notice as well as Ex. A6 reply. According to PW 6 Advocate Ramalingam, on the instruction of Rasu Reddiar only he had sent Ex. A 2 1 notice as well as Ex. A-6 reply. PW 6 is a professional man and he was engaged by Rasu Reddiar as his Advocate to issue notice and the defendants had disowned him because Ex. A6 is inconvenient to them. In Ex. A 6 reply, Rasu Reddiar had stated that on 20-5-1981 he obtained a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from Chinnasamy Reddiar and adding a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- he had executed a promissory note for Rs. 25,000/- and later Rasu Reddiar obtained a sum of Rs. 12,000/- and adding a further sum of Rs. 8,000/- he had executed a promissory note in favour of Soundarammal for a sum of Rs. 20000/- and later Rasu Reddiar obtained a sum of Rs. 8,000/- and adding a further sum of Rs. 7,000/- he had executed a promissory note for Rs. 15,000/- in favour of Sulochana and on the whole Rasu Reddiar received a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards the consideration for all the three promissory notes and he had executed the promissory notes adding the interest as per village custom. So, the averments in Ex. A 6 reply is in consonance with the first written statement filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 8 of 1986 and in that also it was stated that Rasu Reddiar obtained a sum of Rs. 40000/- towards the above said three promissory notes. It is to be noted that in Ex. A-6 and in the first written statement, it is not stated that the three promissory notes were fabricated by the family members of the plaintiff. Whereas, the defendants in the written statements filed in O.S. No. 48 and 49 of 1984 had stated that Rasu Reddiar received a sum of Rs. 30,000/- only and all the three promissory notes were fabricated after the death of Rasu Reddiar. Thus, there is inconsistency in the case of the defendants. 17. PW 4 Muruga Mudaliar is the attesting witness in Exs. A-1 to A-3 promissory notes and according to him, Rasu Reddiar obtained a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from PW 12 and had put his signature in Ex. A 3 and Rasu Reddiar obtained a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from PW 3 and had put his signature in Ex. 17. PW 4 Muruga Mudaliar is the attesting witness in Exs. A-1 to A-3 promissory notes and according to him, Rasu Reddiar obtained a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from PW 12 and had put his signature in Ex. A 3 and Rasu Reddiar obtained a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from PW 3 and had put his signature in Ex. A 2 and he obtained a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from PW 1 and had put his signature in Ex. A1 and he had signed as witness in all the three promissory notes on three occasions. 18. PW 5 Manavalan is the scribe of Exs. A 1 to A 3 and according to him, he came along with Rasu Reddiar for writting the promissory notes and he wrote Exs. A 1 to A 3 on three occasions and only after receiving the consideration, Rasu Reddiar executed the promissory notes. He has further stated that he wrote the promissory notes with his pen and Rasu Reddiar used his pen to put his signature in the promissory notes and two pens were used in the execution of the promissory notes. Thus, PW 5 had spoken about writing of Exs. A 1 to A 3 promissory notes and PW 4 had spoken about the signature put by Rasu Reddiar after receiving the consideration. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs contends that since the execution of Exs. A 1 and A 3 promissory notes by Rasu Raddiar is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act would arise that the promissory notes are supported by consideration, and he relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal, reported in (1999) 3 Mad LW 237. The Apex Court has held as follows : "Upon consideration of various judgments as noted here in above, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non existence of consideration by raising a probable defence. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non existence of consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defedant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon his failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event the defendant is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof of showing the non existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under .Section 118(a) in his favour. The Court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led is to be seen with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence . Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the presumption the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon consideration of which the Court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not exist." In the above decision, the Supreme Court has held that once execution of promissory note is admitted, the presumption that it is supported by consideration under Section 118(a) of the Act arises and it is for the defendant to prove the non existence of the consideration. 19. 19. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants relies on the very same passage in the above judgment and contends that if the defendants show that the existence of consideration was improbable, the onus would shift to the plaintiff to prove the consideration as a matter of fact. Let us examine the contention of the defendants. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that Ex. A 3 was executed on 25-4-1981 and within a gap of 10 days, Ex. A 1 was executed on 5-5-1981 and within a gap of 15 days Ex. A 2 was executed on 20-5-1981 and there was no necessity for Rasu Reddiar to borrow the sums in the interval of 10 and 15 days. The reason for borrowing is mentioned as to pay off debts in Ex.A 3 and the reason for borrowing is mentioned as medical expenses in Ex. A1 and the reason for borrowing is mentioned as family expenses in Ex. A 2 and admittedly Rasu Reddiar had signed in all the promissory notes. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs contends that merely because the interval between the promissory notes is only few days, that may not be sufficient to hold that the documents are not supported by consideration and he relies on the decision of this Court in Kamala v. K.A. Kunjithapatham, reported in (1999) 3 Mad LW 872. S.S. Subramani, J. in the above decision has held as follows :- "On a reading of the evidence adduced in this case, I do not think that the defendants have adduced a prima facie case rebutting the presumption under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The only argument that was advanced before the Courts below seems to be that the defendant was in possession of sufficient funds and there was no necessity for him to execute the suit promissory notes. A submission was made that the interval between some of the promissory notes is only 20 days, and within such a short time, there was no necessity for the defendant to borrow huge amounts. I am unable to accept this contention of the legal representatives of deceased defendant, when he (i.e., the deceased defendant) himself had admitted the execution of the promissory notes. I am unable to accept this contention of the legal representatives of deceased defendant, when he (i.e., the deceased defendant) himself had admitted the execution of the promissory notes. Merely because the interval between two promissory notes is only few days, that may not be sufficient to hold that the documents are not supported by consideration." The above decision squarely applies to the facts of this case and in the present case also, the legal representatives of Rasu Reddiar raise this contention when Rasu Reddiar had admitted the execution of promissory notes in his reply Ex. A-6. Merely because the interval between the promissory notes is only few days, that may not be sufficient to hold that the promissory notes were not supported by consideration. 20. Another contention was raised stating that no notice demanding the payment of money under Ex. A-1 promissory note was sent by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 48 of 1984 to Rasu Reddiar before filing the suit. The suit for recovery of amount on Ex. A-1 promissory note was filed on the last date of limitation i.e. on 11-6-1984 and in the plaint averment it is stated that the plaintiff demanded orally the payment from Rasu Reddiar several times and no payment was made. 21. Yet another contention was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that the other attestor to the promissory notes, namely, Ponnusamy, was not examined in the cases and no reason was given for his non examination. As already seen, one of the attesting witnesses of the promissory notes, namely, P.W. 4 Muruga Mudaliar, was examined to prove the execution of promissory notes and the scribe of the promissory notes P.W. 5 Manavalan had also been examined and in those circumstances there is no need for examining the other attestor. 22. It is contended that P.W. 4 Muruga Mudaliar was a habitual attesting witness and his evidence is not trustworthy. It is true that P.W. 4 Muruga Mudaliar had stated that he had attested 30 to 40 promissory notes as witness and that fact would not make his testimony unreliable. Usually, important residents of the locality would attest the documents like promissory notes and there is no reason to suspect in it. There is nothing to discredit the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 and their evidence can be accepted. Hence, it can be concluded that Ex. Usually, important residents of the locality would attest the documents like promissory notes and there is no reason to suspect in it. There is nothing to discredit the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 and their evidence can be accepted. Hence, it can be concluded that Ex. A-1 to A-3 promissory notes are true and valid and supported by considertion. 23. POINT NO. 2. The specific contention of the defendants in all the three suits is that the family members of the plaintiffs promised to return the three blank stamped signed promissory notes and on that assurance, for the loan amount they obtained a mortagage deed for Rs. 40,000/- executed by Rasu Reddiar on 4-7-1981 in favour of Soundarammal and after wards when Rasu Reddiar demanded the return of the signed promissory notes, they did not return them and after the death of Rasu Reddiar they had filed the suits on the promissory notes and in view of the execution of mortagage deed for the loan amount the promissory notes ought to be considered as discharged. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contends that in view of the execution of mortgage deed by Rasu Reddiar, the liability under the suit promissory notes got discharged by merging with the mortagage. There is no dispute that Rasu Reddiar executed Ex. A-9 mortgage deed on 4-7-1981 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in favour of Soundarammal and it is not receited therein that the mortgage was created on discharge of Exs. A-1 to A-3 promissory note loans. In fact, there is no mention of any debt or promissory note in the mortgage deed. The defendants contend that the recital (vernacular matter omitted) denotes only the loan amounts under Ex.A-1 to A-3 promissory notes. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the promissory note loans and mortgage loan are different. Admittely, Ex. A-9 mortgage deed was created nearly after two months after the execution of Exs. A-1 to A-3 promissory notes. If really the mortgage was created in discharge of the liability under the promissory notes, it would have been recited in the mortgage deed to that effect, but, it is not stated so in Ex. A-9. 24. The learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants contends that the plaintiffs ought to have examined the witnesses and the scribe of Ex. A-9 to show that it is supported by consideration independently. A-9. 24. The learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants contends that the plaintiffs ought to have examined the witnesses and the scribe of Ex. A-9 to show that it is supported by consideration independently. This contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the truth and validity of the promissory notes is the only question to be decided in these suits. As already seen, in view of the admission of the execution of Exs. A-1 to A-3 promissory notes, the plaintiffs are entitled to the benefit of presumption under S. 118 (a) of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs further contends that as per S. 82 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, discharge from liability of promissory note can be made only by cancellation or release or payment and there cannot be discharge of liability on execution of mortgage. Section 82 of the Act contemplates only the above three modes for discharge from liability and the defendants cannot plead discharge from liability by any other mode. 25. The execution of Exs. A-1 to A-3 promissory notes by Rasu Reddiar is admitted and the plaintiffs are entitled to the benefit of presumption u/S. 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the promissory notes are supported by consideration and the defendants had not shown that the existence of consideration was improbable and they had not proved the non-existance of consideration and in those circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit claim in their respective suits as prayed for. 26. For the reasons stated, all the three appeals are allowed with costs throughout and the common judgment and decrees in O.S. Nos. 48 and 49 of 1984 and 8 of 1986, dated 2-2-1987, are set aside and the three suits are decreed as prayed for. Appeals allowed.