JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No.586 of 1996 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai, has preferred the second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 4.8.1998 in A.S. No.31 of 1997 on the file of Additional District Court, Thiruvannamalai, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 21.12.1996. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,383. The defendant received a sum of Rs.5,000 from the plaintiff on 3.6.1995 and executed the suit pronote. The defendant agreed to repay the Principal with interest at 12% per annum. The money was borrowed for the purpose of purchasing land and also for discharging debts incurred for celebrating his marriage, Inspite of demand, the defendant did not pay either towards principal or towards interest. 3. The defendant resisted the suit and denied the passing of consideration. The plaintiff is only the brother’s wife of the defendant. The plaintiff’s husband and the defendant are having a common well fitted with oil engine. There was dispute between them with regard to taking of water from the common well by using the oil engine. There was Panchayat in respect of the dispute and it was decided in the panchayat that for the purpose of taking water from the common well by using the oil engine, the defendant should pay Rs.2,000 to the husband of the plaintiff. As the money was not paid, the panchayatdars insisted to execute a promissory note for a sum of Rs.5,000 in favour of the plaintiff and he was also directed to pay the said sum of Rs.2,000 and get back the document. It was only under such circumstance, the defendant executed the suit promissory note and it is not supported by consideration. After one month from the date of panchayat, the plaintiff and her husband obstructed the defendant from using the oil engine and consequently due to this, the plaintiff has filed the present suit based upon the document and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The trial Court framed two issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, she was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A-1 was marked. On the side of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no document was marked. 4. The trial Court framed two issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, she was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A-1 was marked. On the side of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no document was marked. The trial Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.31 of 1997 and the learned Additional District Judge, Thiruvannamalai after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit and aggrieved against this, the present second appeal is filed by the defendant. 5. The defendant/ appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the appellate Court is justified in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court which had clearly held that the plaintiff had miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding passing of consideration? (2) Whether the appellate Court had arrived at a proper and correct conclusion regarding the presumption that admission of execution would amount to proof of passing of consideration? (3) Whether the Appellate Court had properly appreciated the question of law relating to initial burden and shifting of onus of proof in the light of the pleadings in the written statement as well as in the evidence adduced by the defendants? (4) Whether the appellate Court had properly appreciated the aspect of contradictions in the evidence of the plaintiff with regard to the date of alleged borrowing in the light of Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The respondent/ plaintiff although served, has neither appeared nor engaged any counsel. 8. The points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the suit pronote came into existence as narrated by the defendant/ appellant? (2) Whether the suit document is not supported by consideration? (3) To what relief? 9.Points: The plaintiff filed the suit based upon the suit promissory note EX.A-1 dated 3.6.1995 executed by the defendant for a sum of Rs.5,000 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. The plaintiff examining herself as P.W.1 stated that Ex.A-1 was supported by consideration and the defendant executed the document after receiving the sum of Rs.5,000. According to her, no amount was paid by the defendant either towards principal or towards interest. The plaintiff examining herself as P.W.1 stated that Ex.A-1 was supported by consideration and the defendant executed the document after receiving the sum of Rs.5,000. According to her, no amount was paid by the defendant either towards principal or towards interest. However, the defendant/ appellant took a stand that Ex.A-1 is not supported by consideration and it came into existence under different circumstances. D.W.1 stated that P.W.1 is only his brother’s wife. The plaintiff’s husband and D.W.1 had a common well fitted with oil engine. There was dispute among them relating to the use of the oil engine and after panchayat, it was decided that D.W.1 should pay a sum of Rs.2,000 to the plaintiff’s husband to enable him to use the oil engine. Since D.W.1 had no money at that time, on the direction of the panchayatdars, Ex.A-1 was executed for a sum of Rs.5,000. According to D.W.1, it was also agreed by P.W.1 that on payment of Rs.2,000, D.W.1 can get back the suit document. One month after the Panchayat, P.W.1 as well as her husband obstructed the defendant from using the oil engine and because of this enmity only, the suit was laid. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant contended that the lower appellate Court has reversed the well considered finding of the trial Court and erred in not appreciating the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2. The contradictory evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the date of alleged borrowing has not been considered properly. The burden of proof has been wrongly placed on the defendant. The lower appellate Court erred in disbelieving the consistent evidence of D.W.1 regarding the circumstances under which Ex.A-1 was executed. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the burden is only upon the plaintiff to establish that the suit document was supported by consideration. The plaintiff has not chosen to examine either the scribe or the attestor to the document. In fact, D.W.2 is one of the attestors to Ex.A-1 and his evidence has not been considered in the proper perspective. 12. It is necessary to state that the execution of Ex.A-1 was admitted by D.W.1 not only in the written statement but also in the course of evidence. In fact, D.W.2 is one of the attestors to Ex.A-1 and his evidence has not been considered in the proper perspective. 12. It is necessary to state that the execution of Ex.A-1 was admitted by D.W.1 not only in the written statement but also in the course of evidence. When once the execution of the document is admitted, there is a statutory presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act) that the suit document was supported by consideration and, as such, the burden is only upon the defendant to show that it is not supported by consideration and it came into existence under different circumstances. When there is a statutory presumption in favour of the plaintiff, the non-examination of the scribe or the attestor would not affect the case of the plaintiff in any way. Even according to D.W.1, the panchayatdars decided that he should pay a sum of Rs.2,000 and if that be so, what was the necessity for executing the suit document for a sum of Rs.5,000 If the panchayatdars have decided that only a sum of Rs.2,000 is payable then the document could have been executed only for the said amount of Rs.2,000 and not for Rs.5,000. There is no satisfactory explanation on the part of D.Ws.1 and 2 for executing Ex.A-1 for a higher amount. D.W.1 in the course of evidence also admitted that he executed Ex.A-1 and the recitals in the document are correct. He further admitted that there is no misunderstanding between him as well as his brother prior to the filing of the suit. 13. Ex.A-1 is attested by two persons namely, A.Ponna Gounder and M.Perumal. D.W.2 is one of the attestors to Ex.A-1. Admittedly, D.W.2 is related to D.W.1. His evidence gives a different version relating to Ex.A-1. According to him, the sum of Rs.2,000 as well as another sum of Rs.3,000 relate to other money transactions and only for that purpose, the document was executed. He did not speak about the alleged panchayat relating to the well or the oil engine. D.W.2 stated that at the time of partition between D.W.1 and his brother, there was debt of Rs.9,000 which fell to the share of the defendant. The plaintiff had discharged Rs.3,000 towards the loan payable by D.W.1 and inclusive of that amount only, Ex.A-1 was executed. D.W.2 stated that at the time of partition between D.W.1 and his brother, there was debt of Rs.9,000 which fell to the share of the defendant. The plaintiff had discharged Rs.3,000 towards the loan payable by D.W.1 and inclusive of that amount only, Ex.A-1 was executed. It is a new and different case put forward by D.W.2 and it is not consistent with the version of D.W.1. It was only under such circumstances, the lower appellate Court has correctly discredited the testimony of D.Ws.1 and 2. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of the Court some portions in the testimony of P.W.1 in order to show that she could not have lent the money on the said date. There is a presumption under Sec.118(B) of the N.I. Act that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date. This being so, the burden is only upon D.W.1 to prove otherwise. P.W.1 in the course of evidence stated that during the Karthigai month of last year, she received a sum of Rs.5,000 from her father and two days prior to Karthigai Deepam, he received the said amount. It is pertinent to point out that P.W.1 has not stated in her evidence that the defendant had received the sum of Rs.5,000 from the plaintiff during the month of Karthigai in 1995. Her version relates to getting the money from her father and this does not mean that the amount was lent to the defendant only on the said date. Even assuming that there is some discrepancy in the month, it will not rebut the presumption under Sec.118 of N.I. Act. If D.W.2 has stated or supported the testimony of D.W.1 as pleaded in the written statement, it would affect the case of the plaintiff. When the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 are mutually contradictory relating to the circumstances under which Ex.A-1 came into existence, in view of the presumption under Sec.118 of N.I. Act only, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the suit document is supported by consideration and the burden placed upon the defendant has not been discharged property. Perusal of the entire judgment of the lower appellate Court clearly indicates that there was proper appreciation of evidence as well as legal position and it cannot be said to be perverse. Perusal of the entire judgment of the lower appellate Court clearly indicates that there was proper appreciation of evidence as well as legal position and it cannot be said to be perverse. Moreover, there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the lower appellate Court to call for interference. Hence, the points are answered accordingly. For the reasons stated above, the second appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No.2195 of 1999 is also dismissed.