JUDGMENT : Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree, both appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The first appellant is the defendant in both suits. The respondents in both cases filed a suits against the appellant in O.S.No.16 & 17 of 1990 before the Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul for the relief of recovery of money. After trial, the trial Court, by judgment and decrees, dated 23.02.1993, decreed the suits in favour of the respondents. Challenging the said judgments and decree, the defendant has filed these appeals. Pending appeal, the appellant in both appeals and the respondent in A.S.No.1149 of 1993 died and their legal representatives were brought on record as aforesaid. 3. Brief plaint averments are as follows:- The defendant approached the plaintiffs at Dindigul on 15.11.1986 and borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- each from the plaintiffs for his family expenses and executed two promissory notes in favour of the plaintiffs and agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs.1/- per Rs.100/-. Thereafter, despite repeated demands by the plaintiffs, the defendant did not repay the loan amount and did not pay any interest. Hence, the suits. 4. Brief averments stated in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:- The defendant did not borrow any money from the plaintiffs at any point of time and did not execute any promissory note in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed separate suits against the defendant, each claiming that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- each from them. The plaintiffs have got no means to pay the huge amount of Rs.50,000/- each. The defendant had no acquittance with the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs Mr.Paul Singh was a retired Officer from the Revenue Department. After his retirement, he practised as an Advocate and was helping many matters concerning Revenue. Some of the lands of the defendant situated in Kodalvavi Village were under the Land Acquisition Proceedings. Since the father of the plaintiff helped one M.S.Pandiya Nadar when his lands were acquired to get good amount of compensation, the defendant approached Paul Singh for assistance in the land acquisition proceedings. Some of the lands of the defendant situated in Kodalvavi Village were under the Land Acquisition Proceedings. Since the father of the plaintiff helped one M.S.Pandiya Nadar when his lands were acquired to get good amount of compensation, the defendant approached Paul Singh for assistance in the land acquisition proceedings. The defendant assured to give remunaration to the said Paul Singh and for the same, he signed in two pronote forms, which were not filled with regard to any particulars of date, amount of interest or the name of the payee. It was agreed between the plaintiffs' father and the defendant that the said Paul Singh should maintain amounts of the expenses met by him with regard to the land acquisition proceedings of the lands of the defendant and after the compensation was paid by the State, the defendant should pay the expenses met by Paul Singh as per the accounts and a reasonable amount as remuneration for the services rendered. As per the understanding only, the defendant signed in two blank pronote forms and gave them to Paul Singh. Mr.Paul Singh met with an accident and died. After his death, his sons got the pronotes and filled to each of Rs.50,000/- in their name and have filed the suits. The Land Acquisition proceedings are pending in the High Court and hence, only after the defendant get the compensation, the liability will arise. But, Paul Singh died without doing substantial work. Hence, his heirs are entitled to produce the accounts of receipt and expenses maintained by Paul Singh. The defendant has no necessity to borrow any amount from anybody and he has no debts. He prays for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the suit promissory notes are genuine and true? And whether it has been given due consideration or whether it has been created for the reasons stated in the counter affidavit filed by the defendant? (ii) What other relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 6. In order to substantiate the case, on the side of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs in both cases examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and two other witnesses were examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.A1 and A10. (ii) What other relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 6. In order to substantiate the case, on the side of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs in both cases examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and two other witnesses were examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.A1 and A10. On the side of the defendant, he examined himself as DW1 and 17 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B17. 7. The trial Court, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit by common judgment and decree, dated 23.02.1993. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendant as appellant has filed this appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant never borrowed any money from the respondents at any point of time and he never executed any promissory note. The respondents have no means to pay such huge amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/-. The father of the respondent, namely, Mr.Paul Singh was a retired Officer from the Revenue Department. After his retirement, he practised as an Advocate and was helping many matters concerning Revenue. The appellant's properties were acquired and therefore, in order to get the compensation, the appellant approached Paul Singh, who was the father of the respondents, for assistance in the land acquisition proceedings. The appellant assured to give remunaration to the said Paul Singh and for that purpose, he signed in two unfilled promissory notes. Mr.Paul Singh met with an accident and died. After his death, the respondents taking advantage of the signed promissory notes, which were given to the father of the respondents, filled each of Rs.50,000/- in their names and have filed the suits. The promissory notes have not been given by the appellant in favour of the respondent and the suits are barred by limitation and the respondents have not proved their case and the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence. Though it is a settled proposition of law that the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable presumption, the appellant need not prove his defence and rebut the presumption by examining himself or through direct evidence. The presumption can be rebutted by preponderance of probabilities. In these cases, the appellant established his defence and rebutted the presumption by preponderance of probabilities. The presumption can be rebutted by preponderance of probabilities. In these cases, the appellant established his defence and rebutted the presumption by preponderance of probabilities. The trial Court has erroneously decreed the suit in favour of the respondents, which warrants interference of this Court. 9. Though sufficient opportunities were given to the respondents, they have not appeared in person or through counsel before this Court. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, perused the pleadings, issues framed by the trial Court, oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced by both parties. 11. Though it is a case of the respondents that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and executed two promissory notes and when the respondents demanded the appellant to repay the money, the appellant did not repay the same. Hence, they filed a suit for recovery of money. 12. The case of the appellant is that, he never borrowed any money from the respondents. Actually, the father of the respondents one Paul Singh was a retired Officer from the Revenue Department. After his retirement, he practised as an Advocate and was helping many matters concerning Revenue. The appellant assured to give remunaration to the said Paul Singh for helping the Land Acquisition Proceedings and for that purpose, he gave two signed unfilled promissory notes. After his death, the respondents taking advantage of the signed promissory notes, which were given to the father of the respondents, filled each of Rs.50,000/- in their name and have filed the suits. The respondents have no means to lend such huge money. 13. A careful reading of the entire materials it is seen that the appellant has not denied the signatures found in the suit promissory notes Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and also the execution of the promissory notes. Once the appellant admitted the execution of the promissory notes and the signatures, the onus of proof has been shifted to the appellant. The respondents have discharged their initial burden. Therefore, the trial Court found that the appellant has not discharged his onus and he has not substantiated his defence taken, decreed the suits. Since this Court as the first appellate Court is a fact finding Court it has to re-appreciate the entire evidence and give an independent findings. 14. This Court also finds that the appellant had admitted the signature found in the suit promissory notes Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Since this Court as the first appellate Court is a fact finding Court it has to re-appreciate the entire evidence and give an independent findings. 14. This Court also finds that the appellant had admitted the signature found in the suit promissory notes Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. It is for the appellant to discharge his burden. Once the execution and signatures are admitted and it is a presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, no doubt the said presumption is rebuttable presumption. The appellant has not rebutted the presumption in the manner known to law. Though he need not rebut the presumption by direct evidence, he can very well rebut the same by preponderanc of probabilities. A reading of the entire materials, this Court finds that the appellant has not rebutted the presumption in the manner known to law, therefore, there is no merit in the appeals and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, both appeals are dismissed. The common judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Since the respondents side no representation, no order as to costs.