JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Second appeal is filed, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.11 of 2011, on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli camp at Thuraiyur, dated 28.03.2014 reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.232 of 2006, dated 05.11.2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur.) In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgment and Decree, dated 28.03.2014, passed in A.S.No.11 of 2011, on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, Camp at Thuraiyur, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 05.11.2009, passed in O.S.No.232 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur. 2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. Suit for recovery of money. 4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the defendants for the purpose of purchasing lands and also for meeting the cultivation expenses, borrowed Rs.40,000/- and Rs.39,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.07.2006 and in evidence of the borrowal of the aforesaid sums from the plaintiff, the defendants had executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the borrowed sums with interest as recited in the suit promissory notes and thereafter, the defendants failed to repay the borrowed sums, despite the repeated demands from the plaintiff to repay the same and on the other hand, the defendants, with a view to evade the repayment were attempting to alienate the property belonging to them so as to deprive the plaintiff from taking action against the defendants and furthermore, the defendants had also not purchased lands out of the borrowed sums as represented by them and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for the recovery of money. 5. 5. The case of the defendants in brief is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and according to the defendants, they had been cultivating the lands of the plaintiff's father on vaaram basis and accordingly, the plaintiff's father and the defendants used to share the produce equally, as per the arrangement entered into between them and in respect of another set of lands also, the defendants had been cultivating the lands belonging to the plaintiff's father on vaaram basis and used to share the produce in the ratio of 1:2 as recited in the written statement and accordingly, it is put forth by the defendants that the produce had been shared between the plaintiff's father and the defendants as agreed to and after the plaintiff had taken over the management, he had procured the entire produce derived from the labour of the defendants in the lands and failed to pay the value of the produce to the defendants and till the plaintiff's father was managing the lands, there was no dispute between the parties and only after the plaintiff had taken over the management, the issues started arising between the parties and it is further pleaded by the defendants that in respect of the cultivation of the lands belonging to the plaintiff's father on vaaram basis, according to them, the plaintiff's father used to obtain their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes every year and at the year end used to obtain their signatures in the fresh stamped promissory notes and destroy the promissory notes obtained from them earlier and the same had been the practice between the parties over a period of time and accordingly, the defendants also, after the plaintiff had taken over the management of the lands, had put their signatures independently in the blank stamped promissory notes and handed over the same to the plaintiff and according to the defendants, the plaintiff taking advantage of the same appears to have created and forged the suit promissory notes based on the signatures obtained from the defendants in the blank stamped promissory notes and therefore, according to the defendants, they had not borrowed any sum from the plaintiff as recited in the plaint nor executed the suit promissory notes in evidence of the borrowal of the said sums from the plaintiff and on the other hand, it is stated by them that the plaintiff had filled-up the blank promissory notes, in which the signatures of the defendants had been obtained as above stated and accordingly, he had also recited therein that sums had been borrowed by the defendants for the purchase of the lands, however, knowing fully well that the defendants had not purchased any lands out of the alleged borrowed sums, it is stated by the defendants that the plaintiff was forced to aver in the plaint that the defendants had not purchased any lands out of the borrowed sums and therefore, according to the defendants, as the plaintiff had chosen to institute the suit based on the created promissory notes, therefore, he is not entitled to recover any sum from the defendants and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. Ex.X1 was also marked. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court, on an appreciation of the materials placed on record and the submissions made, was pleased to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and by way of allowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, decreed the suit as prayed for. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid by the defendants. 8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: “(1) Whether the First Appellate Court is correct and justified in applying the presumption under Sections 20 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even in the absence of the plaintiff proving the execution of the promissory note by the defendants by legally acceptable evidence, despite specific denial by the defendants? (2) Is the judgment of the first appellate Court drawing presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act sustainable in law, when the first appellate Court has completely overlooked the inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of PW1, sufficient by itself to rebut any such presumption? (3) Whether the first appellate Court is correct and justified in reversing the well considered judgment of the Trial Court without discussing and disagreeing with the findings of the Trial Court and without setting out reasons for reversing the same? (4) Is the first appellate Court correct in placing the burden of proof on the defendants to disprove their signatures in the promissory notes and also to disprove passing of consideration, as it would amount to requiring the defendants to prove the negative? 9. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for recovery of money based on the suit promissory notes marked as Exs.A1 and A2. 9. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for recovery of money based on the suit promissory notes marked as Exs.A1 and A2. According to the plaintiff, the defendants' borrowed the sums of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.39,000/- from him for the purpose of purchasing lands and meeting the cultivation expenses and in evidence of the aforesaid borrowal, the defendants had executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff on 10.07.2006 promising to repay the borrowed sums with interest as recited in the suit promissory notes and according to the plaintiff, the defendants had failed to repay the borrowed sums, despite the repeated demands from the plaintiff and on the other hand, the defendants were attempting to alienate the lands with a view to deprive the plaintiff from recovering the borrowed sums from them and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for the recovery of money. 10. On a perusal of the written pleas put forth by the defendants, it is evident that the defendants had taken the plea that they had been cultivating the lands belonging to the plaintiff's father on vaaram basis and used to share the produce as agreed to between them and the plaintiff's father as recited in the written statement. 10. On a perusal of the written pleas put forth by the defendants, it is evident that the defendants had taken the plea that they had been cultivating the lands belonging to the plaintiff's father on vaaram basis and used to share the produce as agreed to between them and the plaintiff's father as recited in the written statement. Further, according to the defendants, the plaintiff's father, in respect of the cultivation of the lands on vaaram basis, with a view to ensure that the defendants do not raise any dispute at the time of eviction, used to obtain their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes every year in the month of Chithirai and used to obtain their signatures again at the year end in the blank stamped promissory notes and destroy the promissory notes, in which their signatures had been obtained earlier and the same had been the practice between the defendants and the plaintiff's father over a long period of time and according to the defendants, after the plaintiff had taken over the management of the lands from his father, as usual, the defendants had affixed their signatures independently in the blank stamped promissory papers in favour of the plaintiff and it is thus, pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff, taking advantage of their signatures in the above said blank stamped promissory notes, had filled-up the same and fraudulently laid the suit against the defendants, as if they had borrowed the sums from him as recited in the suit promissory notes. Therefore, according to the defendants, the suit promissory notes are bad for want of passing of consideration and as they had not borrowed any sum from the plaintiff and on the other hand, inasmuch as the plaintiff had failed to pay the value of the produce to the defendants as per the understanding between the parties in respect of the cultivation of the lands belonging to him on vaaram basis, with a view to obtain unlawful enrichment, had created the suit promissory notes as above said and laid the suit falsely and therefore, according to the defendants, the suit laid by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 11. 11. Though it is contended by the defendants' counsel that the defendants had not admitted their signatures in the suit promissory notes and on the other hand, they had taken a plea that the suit promissory notes had been forged and fabricated by the plaintiff with a view to take vengeance against them and as the defendants had not borrowed any sum from the plaintiff and also not executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff evidencing the borrowal as alleged in the plaint, according to him, the onus squarely rests upon the plaintiff to establish that the defendants had borrowed the sums from the plaintiff as recited in the plaint and executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff in evidence thereof and according to him, inasmuch as the plaintiff had failed to establish the above said case by placing acceptable oral and documentary evidence and on the other hand, the materials placed on record improbablize the case of the plaintiff that the defendants had borrowed the sums from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory notes as alleged, it is his contention that the First Appellate Court had erred in shifting the burden upon the defendants for proving the absence of passing of consideration under the suit promissory notes and therefore, according to him, the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court based on the above said premise and decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff are liable to be set aside. 12. 12. Per contra, it is the argument of the plaintiff's counsel that on a perusal of the written pleas projected by the defendants, it is evident that the defendants had admitted their signatures in the suit promissory notes and inasmuch as, according to the defendants, they used to put their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes every year and accordingly, they had also admitted that they had put their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and as they had taken the plea that the plaintiff had misused the above said signatures obtained from them in the blank stamped promissory notes and forged the suit promissory notes, inasmuch as by way of the same, the defendants had clearly admitted their signatures in the suit promissory notes, according to the plaintiff's counsel, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, referred to as “the N.I. Act”) gets invoked and in such view of the matter, the defendants having admitted their signatures in the suit promissory notes, the burden initially rests only upon the defendants to establish that the suit promissory notes are bad for want of passing of consideration as recited therein and inasmuch as the defendants had failed to discharge the above said onus resting upon them, according to the plaintiff's counsel, the First Appellate Court is wholly justified in accepting the plaintiff's case on the failure of the defendants to discharge their burden and therefore, according to him, the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court require no interference and have to be confirmed by this Court. Further, according to the plaintiff's counsel, the plaintiff, as the holder of the suit promissory notes, is entitled to fill-up the suit promissory notes as per Section 20 of the N.I. Act and on that basis also, it is his argument that the First Appellate Court has rightly invoked the above said provision of law for upholding the plaintiff's case and therefore, the second appeal is liable to the dismissed. 13. 13. Inasmuch as the nature of the defence projected by the defendants itself is in dispute, as put forth by the respective parties, for a better understanding of the defence put forth by the defendants in the written pleas, it would be useful to extract the specific defence version taken by the defendants with reference to the same as stated in Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the written statement. In Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the written statement, the defendants have pleaded as follows: “TAMIL” 14. On a perusal of the above said defence put forth by the defendants in the written statement, it is evident that they have admitted that they used to put their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, after he had taken over the management of the lands and accordingly, admitted that during the month of Chithirai, 2006, they had also put their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes independently and accordingly, they had taken the plea that taking advantage of their signatures put in the above said blank stamped promissory notes, the plaintiff had fabricated the suit promissory notes as if they had borrowed the sums recited therein from the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the sums as prayed for. Further, the defendants have also pleaded in Paragraph No.9 that the plaintiff had filled-up the contents in the blank stamped promissory notes in which, the defendants had put their signatures, as if the defendants had purchased the lands out of the borrowed sums and accordingly, on coming to know that the defendants had not purchased lands out of the borrowed sums, the defendants have also put forth that the plaintiff had pleaded in the plaint that the defendants had not purchased lands out of the borrowed sums. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the pleas put forth by the defendants in the written statement, particularly, in Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the same, would go to reveal very clearly that the defendants have admitted their signatures in the suit promissory notes. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the pleas put forth by the defendants in the written statement, particularly, in Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the same, would go to reveal very clearly that the defendants have admitted their signatures in the suit promissory notes. The argument has been put forth by the defendants' counsel that in the above said paragraphs, the defendants have taken a plea that they have put their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes independently and not jointly and therefore, when the plaintiff had taken the plea that the defendants have jointly executed the suit promissory notes, in such view of the matter, according to the defendants' counsel, the plaintiff, on the basis of the above said pleas in the written statement, cannot be allowed to invoke the Sections 118 and 20 of the N.I. Act. However, on a complete reading of the pleas put forth by the defendants in the written statement, it is seen that though they had averred that they had put their signatures independently in the blank stamped promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff during Chithirai, 2006, the defendants having averred that the plaintiff had misused their signatures and filled-up the suit promissory notes to suit his convenience would only go to imply and disclose that the defendants had clearly admitted their signatures in the suit promissory notes and would only put forth the case that by misusing their signatures in the suit promissory notes, the plaintiff had filled-up the contents of the suit promissory notes and laid the suit falsely against them. 15. 15. In the light of the above said position, the argument put forth by the defendants' counsel that the plaintiff is not entitled to invoke the Sections 118 and 20 of the N.I. Act, as such, cannot be accepted, particularly, when from the above said pleas put forth by the defendants in the written statement, they having admitted their signatures in the suit promissory notes, without any ambiguity, the normal interpretation of the pleas contained in the written statement would only go to show that they had clearly admitted their signatures in the suit promissory notes, in such view of the matter, the First Appellate Court is wholly justified in invoking the Sections 118 and 20 of the N.I. Act in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, on noting that the defendants had failed to discharge the initial burden of proof resting upon them in establishing that the suit promissory notes are bad for want of passing of consideration and on the other hand, from the evidence adduced in the matter, when it is noted that the defendants had borrowed the sums from the plaintiff as recited in the plaint and in evidence thereof, had executed the suit promissory notes, accordingly, invoking Section 118 of N.I. Act, by the First Appellate Court is wholly justified in accepting the plaintiff's case. 16. In this connection, an useful reference may be made to the decision relied upon by the defendants' counsel in Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1008 , with regard to the presumption as to consideration and the burden of proof concerning the same in the light of Section 118 of the N.I.Act and the position of law, with reference to the same, has been outlined in the above said decision as under: “Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.118 – Promissory note – Presumption as to consideration – Burden of proof – Promissory note alleged to have been executed as a collateral security and not for “value received” as mentioned therein – Failure of defendant to prove non-existence of consideration – Onus cannot be shifted on plaintiff – Claim made by plaintiff has to be allowed even if evidence adduced by plaintiff is found to be unbelievable in rebuttal of defendant's case. (1996) 2 Cal HN 327, Reversed. (1996) 2 Cal HN 327, Reversed. Once execution of the promissory not is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebut table. The defendant can prove the non-existence of consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant 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 its 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 plaintiff 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 by 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 if did not exist. (1996) 2 Cal HN 327, Reversed. In instant case, the defendant alleged that the Promissory Note had not been executed for the value received as mentioned therein but was executed by way of collateral security. (1996) 2 Cal HN 327, Reversed. In instant case, the defendant alleged that the Promissory Note had not been executed for the value received as mentioned therein but was executed by way of collateral security. A perusal of the written statement of the defendant would clearly and unambiguously show that to disprove the consideration of the Promissory Note, he had brought certain circumstances to the notice of the Court which he wanted to probabilising by leading evidence. The evidence led by the defendant in that regard was not acceptable. In the absence of disproving the existence of the consideration, the onus of proof of the legal presumption in favour of the plaintiff could not be shifted. It is true that the plaintiff had produced evidence in the case and that evidence was in fact the evidence in rebuttal, of the evidence produced by the defendant in the case. Even though it is true that the plaintiffs evidence was not believed yet the same could not be made basis for rejecting the claim because obligation upon the plaintiff to lead evidence for the purposes of 'to prove his case', could not have been insisted upon because the defendant has prima facie or initially not discharged his onus of proof by showing directly or probabilising the non-existence of consideration.” 17. On a consideration of the principles of law outlined in the above said decision, when it is noted that the defendants have admitted their signatures in the suit promissory notes and had taken the plea that the plaintiff had filled-up the contents of the suit promissory notes, in which their signatures had been obtained, in such view of the matter, the defendants cannot be allowed to put forth the plea that they had executed the suit promissory notes as a collateral security or otherwise, in connection with the cultivation of the lands belonging to the plaintiff's father on vaaram basis and when the defendants had failed to establish the burden of proof resting upon them that the suit promissory notes had not been executed for the value recited therein and accordingly, the defendants having failed to prove the non-existence of the consideration passed under the suit promissory notes, it is found that the onus of proof would not shift to the plaintiff and that apart, it is also noted that in such circumstances, the claim made by the plaintiff has to be allowed even if the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is found to be unbelievable in rebuttal of the defendants' case. As per the above said decision of the Apex Court, when the defendants had failed to establish their case by placing acceptable and adequate proof to hold that the suit promissory notes are bad for want of passing of consideration as recited there under, the defendants having failed to discharge the burden resting upon them, the First Appellate Court is fully justified in accepting the plaintiff's case based on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. 18. At the foremost, it is seen that the defendants have not established their case as to the cultivation of the lands by them belonging to the plaintiff's father on vaaram basis. With reference to the above said arrangement entered into between the plaintiff's father and the defendants, as regards the cultivation of lands on vaaram basis, there is no proper proof placed on the part of the defendants. If really any such agreement had been entered into between the plaintiff's father and the defendants and accordingly, they had also agreed to share the produce equally or in different ratio as put forth in the written statement, materials pointing to the same would have been placed by the defendants. If really any such agreement had been entered into between the plaintiff's father and the defendants and accordingly, they had also agreed to share the produce equally or in different ratio as put forth in the written statement, materials pointing to the same would have been placed by the defendants. On the other hand, in connection with the aforesaid case put forth by the defendants, there is no proper and reliable proof placed. That apart, as regards the case put forth by the defendants that they used to put their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes every Chithirai month in connection with the cultivation of lands belonging to the plaintiff's father on vaaram basis and the same used to be destroyed by the plaintiff's father on obtaining their signatures in the fresh blank stamped promissory notes at the year end has also not been fortified by the defendants by placing acceptable and convincing proof pointing to the same. If really, a valid lease agreement had been entered into between the plaintiff's father and the defendants, there is no need on the part of the defendants to put their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff's father. Therefore, the above said defence itself is found to be unbelievable and unacceptable and accordingly, the defendants, with a view to avoid the case put forth by the plaintiff, had taken the false plea as if they used to put their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes every year at the behest of the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff and when it is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff's father or the plaintiff used to obtain their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes by using force or other illegal modes, in such circumstances, the case of the defendants that they used to put their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes and the plaintiff taking advantage of the same had created the suit promissory notes cannot the believed and accepted, particularly, when it has not been established by the defendants that such a practice had been in vogue for several years as put forth by them. In such view of the matter, it is noted that inasmuch as the defendants had borrowed the sums from the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint, accordingly, in evidence thereof, they had executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, on their failure to repay the borrowed sums, despite the repeated demands of the plaintiff, it is seen that the plaintiff had been necessitated to lay the suit for the recovery of money. 19. The argument has been put forth by the defendants' counsel that the plaintiff had not issued any pre-suit notice for claiming the amounts from the defendants under the suit promissory notes and the above said stand of the plaintiff would only go to expose that the suit promissory notes had been created by him. The above said argument does not merit acceptance. It is not necessary for the suitor to compulsorily issue the pre-suit notice in all cases before instituting the suit. When according to the plaintiff, he had made repeated demands to the defendants and despite the same, the defendants had failed to repay the borrowed sums and also adduced evidence in respect thereof, in such view of the matter, there is no need on the part of the plaintiff to issue any pre-suit notice calling upon the defendants to repay the borrowed sums under the suit promissory notes. In such circumstances, the failure on the part of the plaintiff in issuing the pre-suit notice to the defendants would not in any manner be fatal to the plaintiff's case and therefore, the above said contention does not merit acceptance. 20. In such circumstances, the failure on the part of the plaintiff in issuing the pre-suit notice to the defendants would not in any manner be fatal to the plaintiff's case and therefore, the above said contention does not merit acceptance. 20. The argument has been projected by the defendants' counsel that the plaintiff had not been consistent in his evidence as regards the availability of cash with him for paying the same to the defendants as recited in the suit promissory notes and considering the inconsistent pleas put forth by the plaintiff with reference to the same, according to him, the Court could infer that the plaintiff would not have advanced the suit sums to the defendants as pleaded and on that basis, it is contended by the defendants' counsel that the Court should hold that the defendants had discharged the burden of proof resting upon them and according to him, the burden of proof resting upon the defendants could also be discharged through the inconsistent pleas and the contradictions made by the plaintiff during the course of evidence and accordingly, contended that the plaintiff's suit should fail. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff is not a man having means and therefore, would not be in a position to advance the suit sums to the defendants. In such view of the matter, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff with reference to the availability of cash with him at the relevant point of time would not in any manner undermine his case, particularly, when it is noted that the defendants had failed to establish that no consideration had passed under the suit promissory notes as put forth by them. When the initial burden resting upon the defendants had not been discharged by them as outlined in the decision of the Apex Court above referred to, the onus would not shift upon the plaintiff and particularly, when the plaintiff's capability of advancing the suit sums is not raised as a defence in particular, the evidence tendered by the plaintiff as regards the availability of the cash at the relevant point of time, that by itself, would not in any manner affect his case as such. 21. 21. In this connection, the plaintiff's counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kuppayammal vs. A.Sitheswaran, reported in 2012 (2) LW 48 , wherein, it has been held that the defendants, without discharging the initial burden that the blank promissory notes with only signatures were given, the defendants are not entitled to contend that the plaintiffs are not entitled to draw presumption under Section 118 of N.I. Act and the position of law as regards the same had been adumbrated in the above cited decision in Paragraph Nos.11 and 12, which are extracted hereunder: “(11) As per Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, until the contrary is proved that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. (12) In these appeals, the appellants/plaintiffs filed the suits stating that the promissory notes were executed by the defendants. Therefore, the specific case was that the defendants executed the promissory notes and they did not pay the amount and therefore, the suits were filed for the recovery of the amount. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants put their signatures in blank promissory notes and that was later filled up by the plaintiffs and filed the suits. On the other hand, the defence of the defendants was that they only signed in blank promissory notes and they have not executed the documents. Therefore, when the plaintiffs filed the suits on the promissory notes stating that the promissory notes were executed by the defendants and when the defendants contended that they only signed in the blank promissory notes, which were later filled up, the initial burden is on the defendants to prove that they have only signed in the blank promissory notes, which were later filled up by the plaintiffs. Without discharging the initial burden that the blank promissory notes with only signatures were given, the defendants are not entitled to contend that the plaintiffs are not entitled to draw presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.” 22. Without discharging the initial burden that the blank promissory notes with only signatures were given, the defendants are not entitled to contend that the plaintiffs are not entitled to draw presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.” 22. In the light of the above said position of law, when the defendants had taken the plea that the plaintiff is used to obtain their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes and based on the same, created the suit promissory notes and further, had also taken the plea that the plaintiff had later, filled-up the suit promissory notes to suit his convenience, in such view of the matter, the initial burden shall rest only upon the defendants and the defendants having failed to discharge and rebut the same, it is seen that the First Appellate Court is correct in invoking the Section 118 of the N.I. Act and thereby, upholding the plaintiff's case. 23. As rightly put forth by the plaintiff's counsel, the defendants having admitted that they have put their signatures in favour of the plaintiff in the blank stamped promissory notes, by invoking Section 20 of the N.I. Act, it is seen that the plaintiff, on that basis also, would be entitled to fill-up the suit promissory notes and lay the suit for recovery of the sums, to which he would be entitled as per the law and therefore, it is noted that the First Appellate Court is also justified in invoking the Section 20 of the N.I. Act in favour of the plaintiff and thereby, accepting the plaintiff's case. 24. The defendants' counsel put forth the argument that the plaintiff had failed to examine the scribe of the suit promissory notes as well as the persons associated with the execution of the suit promissory notes and in such view of the matter, according to him, the plaintiff having failed to establish his case by examining the independent witnesses and on the other hand, had adduced his testimony alone, according to him, based on the interested and ipsi dixit testimony of the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court should not have accepted the plaintiff's case. However, the above said argument does not merit acceptance. However, the above said argument does not merit acceptance. When the plaintiff is found to be entitled to invoke Section 118 as well as Section 20 of the N.I.Act and in such view of the matter, when the initial burden rests only upon the defendants, to prove that the suit promissory notes are bad for want of passing of consideration as recited therein and the defendants having failed to establish the above said pleas, particularly, the defendants having failed to establish that the practice has been in vogue, in which, they used to put their signatures in the blank stamped promissory notes over a period of time as recited in the written pleas, in such view of the matter, the defendants having failed to establish and discharge the presumption that could be raised in favour of the plaintiff as provided under law, in such circumstance, the failure on the part of the plaintiff to examine the scribe or the persons associated with the execution of the suit promissory notes would not in any manner undermine his case and resultantly, it is noted that the First Appellate Court is wholly correct in upholding the plaintiff's case and rejecting the defence version by setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court on proper reasonings and conclusions. 25. The defendants' counsel would contend that the First Appellate Court being the final Court of facts should have assessed the case of the parties by giving proper reasonings and conclusions and also should have given reasons as to why it had disturbed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and when with reference to the same, there is no proper discussions on the part of the First Appellate Court, according to him, on that score alone, the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court need reversal and in this connection, placed reliance upon the decisions in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by Lrs. reported in 2001-3-L.W.308 and Perumal and others vs. Ramasamy (died) and others, reported in 2008 (3) TLNJ 359 (Civil). reported in 2001-3-L.W.308 and Perumal and others vs. Ramasamy (died) and others, reported in 2008 (3) TLNJ 359 (Civil). However, on a perusal of the Judgment of the First Appellate Court, it is noted that the First Appellate Court has discussed the materials placed on record by the respective parties in the right perspective and finding that the burden is initially resting only upon the defendants to discharge the same and the defendants having failed to discharge the same, accordingly, right in invoking the presumption in favour of the plaintiff as provided under the law and accordingly, noting that the Trial Court had erroneously shifted the burden on the plaintiff contrary to the position of law by giving reasons, concluded that on the above said score, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court do not stand scrutiny in the eyes of law, in such view of the matter, the First Appellate Court having analyzed the case of the parties by going into the pros and cons of the matter in detail, in such circumstances, the same cannot be termed as bereft of reasonings and conclusions in upholding the plaintiff's case by setting aside the erroneous Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. 26. 26. For the reasons afore stated, the First Appellate Court is correct and justified in applying the presumption under Sections 20 and 118 of the N.I. Act as above discussed and the defendants having failed to discharge the initial burden resting upon them in establishing the plea of the non-passing of consideration under the suit promissory notes, it is found that the onus would never shift to the plaintiff and in such view of the matter, the inconsistencies and contradictions pointed out by the defendants' counsel in the evidence of the plaintiff examined as P.W.1, that by itself, would not be sufficient to improbablize the plaintiff's case and as above seen, considering the principles of law outlined by the Apex Court, when the defendants had failed to discharge the burden resting upon them, the claim of the plaintiff cannot be disallowed, even if the evidence adduced by the defendants is unbelievable and furthermore, when it is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff is not a person having sufficient means, in such view view of the matter, the alleged inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1, that by itself, would not in any manner undermine the plaintiff's case. The First Appellate Court is found to have analyzed the issues involved between the parties in the matter and after discussing the same in detail and giving reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Trial Court, accordingly, deemed it fit to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court by holding that the Trial Court has wrongly shifted the burden upon the plaintiff considering the pleas put forth in the written statement. 27. The First Appellate Court has rightly placed the burden of proof upon the defendants to establish the non-passing of consideration under the suit promissory notes, inasmuch as the defendants have admitted their signatures in the suit promissory notes and accordingly, it is seen that the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court do not warrant any interference of this Court. 28. For the reasons afore stated, the substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 29. The defendants' counsel, in support of his contentions, also placed reliance upon the decision in Rangappan vs. Mohan, reported in 2010 Cri.L.J.2871. 28. For the reasons afore stated, the substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 29. The defendants' counsel, in support of his contentions, also placed reliance upon the decision in Rangappan vs. Mohan, reported in 2010 Cri.L.J.2871. Further, the plaintiff's counsel also in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decision in Ram Kishan Dwivedi vs. Rohni Prasad Tiwari, reported in 2011 (2) Bankmann 213 . The principles of law outlined in the above cited decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 30. For the reasons afore stated, the second appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.