Judgement JUDGMENT :- S. K. Songappa Gounder, the appellant herein, filed a suit on promissory note for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,050/- with interest against the defendants. After trial, the suit was decreed only in respect of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with interest. Challenging the same, the appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn dismissed the same. Hence, the Second Appeal. 2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the 1st defendant on behalf of the 2nd defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note. In spite of demand through notice dated 29-7-1993, the defendants failed to pay the said sum with interest. Hence, the suit was filed. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants by contending that the plaintiff started a chit transaction and the 2nd defendant joined as a subscriber. Every month, he paid Rs. 5,000/- towards chit subscription. The chit auction for the 7th instalment was held on 6-8-1990 and the 2nd defendant was the successful bidder. So, the 1st defendant received the chit amount from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note for Rs. 15,000/- on behalf of the 2nd defendant as security for the proper payment of the remaining three instalments. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant paid the 8th and 9th instalments. The last chit subscription was payable on 25-7-1993. Before the 2nd defendant could remit the last instalment and get back the promissory note given as security, the plaintiff issued the notice dated 29-7-1993 demanding the amount mentioned in the suit promissory note. A reply was immediately sent stating that the plaintiff would not be entitled to realise any amount under the promissory note except the last instalment of Rs. 5,000/-. 4. After framing the necessary issues, the trial commenced. The plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 1 and Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the 2nd defendant and the Accountant were examined as D. Ws. 1 and 2 respectively and Exs. B-1 to B-36 were marked. 5. After analysing the evidence, the trial Court accepted the case of the defendants and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of the suit promissory note and decreed the suit only in respect of the amount of Rs. 5,000/-with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. 6. B-1 to B-36 were marked. 5. After analysing the evidence, the trial Court accepted the case of the defendants and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of the suit promissory note and decreed the suit only in respect of the amount of Rs. 5,000/-with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. 6. The appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court. Similarly, the defendants also filed a cross-objection challenging the decree in respect of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the sum of Rs. 5,000/- being the balance amount payable. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the lower appellate Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-objection and confirmed the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the execution of the Ex. A-1 promissory note was admitted by the respondents/defendants, it shall be presumed that the promissory note was executed on payment of consideration and it is for the drawer of the promissory note to establish his defence to show that the plaintiff would not be entitled to the decree on the said promissory note. 9. It is also submitted that the entries in Exs. B-1 to B-36 accounts books, which had been produced to show that the entire amounts relating to the chit transaction were paid back except Rs. 5,000/-, would not be sufficient to prove the case of the defence, as contemplated under S. 34 of the Evidence Act, since the author who made entries in the accounts books was not examined. 10. On these aspects, I heard the learned Counsel for the respondents. 11. I have carefully given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions. 12. There is no dispute over the legal aspect with reference to S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that once the execution of the promissory note is admitted, the rule of presumption in S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates and the burden shifts from the plaintiff to the other side. 13. This section has been interpreted in the decisions of this Court in M. Shanmugham v. S. Rangasamy Gounder (2000) 1 Mad LW 541 and Meenakshisundaram v. Rangaswami, (1996) 1 Mad LJ 297. 13. This section has been interpreted in the decisions of this Court in M. Shanmugham v. S. Rangasamy Gounder (2000) 1 Mad LW 541 and Meenakshisundaram v. Rangaswami, (1996) 1 Mad LJ 297. Therefore, it cannot be debated that in this case, Section 118 of the Act gets operated. 14. But, the question remains to be considered is as to whether the presumption has been rebutted through acceptable materials produced by the defendants by establishing his defence. 15. In this case, it is the specific case of the defendants that the 2nd defendant joined as a subscriber to the chit started by the plaintiff and he paid 7 instalments and in the 7th instalment, he became the successful bidder. The 1st defendant, the father of the 2nd defendant, on behalf of the 2nd defendant executed the suit promissory note for Rs. 15,000/- as security for the proper payment of the remaining three instalments. Thereafter, 8th and 9th instalments have been paid and these transactions were entered in the books of accounts of the 2nd defendant. 16. Though the execution of the promissory note on behalf of the 2nd defendant has been admitted by the 1st defendant, on behalf of the defendants only the 2nd defendant has been examined as D.W. 1. By referring about Exs. B-1 to B-36, he has stated in his evidence that the amounts towards subscription for 8th and 9th instalments have been paid. 17. The strenuous contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that these documents cannot be acted upon in view of S. 34 of the Evidence Act and the principles laid down by this Court in Meenakshisundaram v. Rangasami (1996) 1 Mad LJ 297 and Arulmigu Visweswara-swami and Veeraraghava Perumal Temples v. Venkatachala Gounder (1996) 1 Mad LW 608. 18. In these decisions, it is held that the entries in ledgers showing payment of the amount without corroborative evidence of day books cannot be accepted in the absence of examination of person, who wrote the books of accounts. 19. In this case, according to D.W.1, some portion of accounts books upto a particular period were written by Nachimuthu and the said Nachimuthu was not examined, as he had been suffering from paralysis attack. D.W. 1 would further state that the other portion of entries in the ledgers were written by one Periannan. The said Periannan was examined as D.W. 2. D.W. 1 would further state that the other portion of entries in the ledgers were written by one Periannan. The said Periannan was examined as D.W. 2. According to him, subsequent to 31-12-1993, he wrote the entries in the ledgers and accounts books. 20. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the accounts books cannot be looked into, especially, when the person, viz., D.W. 1, who made the payments, was examined before the Court stating the details about the payments by referring about the various entries in the ledgers. Likewise, D.W. 2 also would state that till the year 1993, the entries were made by Nachimuthu. 21. The decisions referred to above would state that mere production of the accounts books would not be sufficient and cannot be acted upon, when the person who wrote the accounts books has not been examined and the person who have said to have made the payments mentioned in the accounts books has not been examined. 22. The above observation would not be applicable to the present case because D.W.1 was examined to state that he made the payments mentioned in the accounts books. Similarly, D.W. 2 Accountant, who made entries in the accounts books after a particular period, was also examined. 23. Under those circumstances, in my view, though under S. 118 of the Instruments Act, the presumption would arise, the said presumption has been rebutted by the defendants by establishing their defence to the effect that the defendants have to pay only Rs. 5,000/- as the last chit instalment. 24. The evidence adduced by the parties has been properly considered by both the Courts of facts and as such, I am unable to find any infirmity in those findings of facts. 25. As there is no substantial questions of law would arise in this Second Appeal, the same is dismissed. No costs.