JUDGMENT Subba Reddy Satti, J. - The appeal is filed by the defendant aggrieved by the decree and judgment, dated 30.12.2005 passed in O.S.No. 66 of 2002 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. 2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in suit O.S.No.66 of 2002. 3. The plaintiff filed suit O.S.No. 66 of 2002 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,96,333/- basing on five promissory notes along with interest. 4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is: The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each on five occasions i.e. on 05.08.2001, 12.08.2001, 26.08.2001, 09.09.2001 and 23.09.2001 from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed five promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff; that defendant failed to repay the debt amount inspite of repeated requests made by the plaintiff and through mediators and hence filed the suit. 5. The defendant filed written statement rebutting the plaint averments and contended inter alia that the defendant joined as client in a sub-brokers business of Steel City Securities Ltd., Visakhapatnam, being run by the plaintiff and V. ashok Kumar Reddy (D.W.2) under the name and style M/s. Vijayalakshmi Investments and the defendant did crores of business with the said firm in the year, 1999-2000 due to which the firm benefited lakhs of rupees as brokerage. Subsequently due to crash in share market, the defendant stopped share business. During the course of stock business done by him with the said firm, the defendant executed promissory notes as security deposit for doing stock business and though the promissory notes were drafted by him, date of execution and the name of promisee were kept blank as they were executed only for the sake of security. 6. It is further contended that the witnesses in the promissory notes are close associates of the firm and fraud was committed in the business by incorporating unnecessary entries in his account due to which disputes arose between the defendant and the firm. Therefore, the firm failed to deliver shares certificates worth of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant and when the same was demanded, the suit promissory notes were created in the name of the plaintiff only to harass the defendant. Therefore, the firm failed to deliver shares certificates worth of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant and when the same was demanded, the suit promissory notes were created in the name of the plaintiff only to harass the defendant. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are income tax assessees and every money transaction exceeding Rs.20,000/- shall be either through cheque or demand draft, which was not done and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 7. During the course of trial, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 besides examining the respective attesters of promissory notes as P.W.2 to P.W.4. Exs. a1 to a5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself is examined as DW1 and he got examined one of the partners of the firm as DW2. Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of the defendant. 8. The trial Court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit with costs for Rs.5,96,330/- with future interest at 6% per annum on Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization. Trial Court came to conclusion that defendant failed to establish that Exs.a1 to a5, promissory notes were executed by him towards security for doing business with the firm and thus, failed to discharge onus of proof lying on him. aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court by way of this appeal. 9. Heard Sri V. Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 10. Learned counsel for the defendant would contend that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the date of execution and name of promisee were kept blank since the promissory notes were executed as security deposit for doing share business with the plaintiff and no consideration was passed. He would further submit that the trial Court ought to have rejected the evidence adduced in proof of execution of promissory notes as the same is not admissible because the witnesses of promissory notes are close associates of the firm. It was further contended that since the appellant demanded the plaintiff to deliver share certificates worth of Rs.4,00,000/-, plaintiff pressed blank signed promissory notes into service. The date of execution and the name of promisee were in rubber stamp which would probablize doubt of existence of consideration and that the defendant, indeed, discharged his burden. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 11. The date of execution and the name of promisee were in rubber stamp which would probablize doubt of existence of consideration and that the defendant, indeed, discharged his burden. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would support the judgment of the trial Court. Thus, he prays the Court to dismiss the appeal. 12. From the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether consideration is not passed under the suit promissory notes? 2. Whether non-scribing of promisee's name on Exs a-1 to a-5 invalidate the same? 3. Whether judgment of trial Court is to be interfered with? 4. To what relief? 13. Point Nos.1 to 3: Since points 1 to 3 are interrelated, they are dealt together. as can be seen from the pleadings and evidence the undisputed facts are that the plaintiff and D.W.2 V.ashok Kumar Reddy did shares business under the name and style of M/s. Vijayalakshmi Investments in which defendant was having account. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and deposed about the defendant borrowing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-each on five occasions by executing five different promissory notes under Exs.a1 to a5. He also admitted in his cross-examination that the name of promisee and the date of execution are filled with rubber stamps. He also admitted that the firm is a partnership firm and it is engaged in doing share business in which defendant is also having four accounts and the defendant also did shares business. He denied the suggestion that unnecessary entries were made in the accounts of the defendant and still M/s. Vijaya Lakshmi Investments is due of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant. During further cross-examination PW1 produced day book and ledger for financial year 2001-2002, wherein debit entries were made in the name of defendant for Rs.1,00,000/- each on four occasions. The attesters of Exs.a1 to a5 were examined as PWs2 to 4. 14. PW2 is attester of Exs.a2 and a3, promissory notes, dated 12. 08.2001 and 26.08.2001. PW3 is attester of Exs.a1 and a4, promissory notes dated 05.08.2001 and 09.09.2001. PW4 is attester of Exs.a4 and a5, promissory notes, dated 09.09.2001 and 22.08.2001. a perusal of the cross-examination of these witnesses discerns that nothing contra was elicited during their cross-examination. 15. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and admitted his signature on the promissory notes. PW3 is attester of Exs.a1 and a4, promissory notes dated 05.08.2001 and 09.09.2001. PW4 is attester of Exs.a4 and a5, promissory notes, dated 09.09.2001 and 22.08.2001. a perusal of the cross-examination of these witnesses discerns that nothing contra was elicited during their cross-examination. 15. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and admitted his signature on the promissory notes. However, he deposed that they were executed in relation to shares business and no consideration was passed. He also admitted that he has no enmity with attesters of Exs.a1 to a5, promissory notes. The defendant also examined DW2, one of the partners of M/s. Vijaya Lakshmi Investments. DW2 deposed that mediation was held with regard to suit transaction but the matter was not settled. Thus, the evidence of DW2 is no way helpful to the defendant. It is the contention of the defendant that the name of promisee and date of execution were not filled up by the defendant and they are in rubber stamp. Since it was contended by the defendant that he did not scribe the name of promisee and date on promissory notes, it has to be decided whether filling up of name and date would invalidate promissory note? 16. Section 20 of the N.I. act deals with entries made in instruments, which reads thus: '20. Inchoate stamped instruments: - Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, be thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.' 17. a perusal of the above section manifest that a paper stamped in accordance with law either wholly blank or written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument gives prima facie authority to the holder to make or complete for any amounts specified therein not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. Thus, the contention of the defendant that he did not scribe the name of promisee does not invalidate Exs.a-1 to a-5. In respect of putting date on Exs.a1-a5, though it was contended that rubber stamp was used, it is not the case of defendant that old blank signed promissory notes were used by putting date at the convenience of plaintiff. 18. Division Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad dealt with this aspect in Duggineni Seshagiri Rao, vs. Kothapalli Venkateswara Rao 2001 (6) aLT 95 . as per the ratio laid down in the said decision it is clear that even if the name of the person who advanced the amount is kept blank and filled subsequently it is of no consequence when the execution of note was duly established. 19. In the instant case, defendant admitted the execution of promissory notes. The burden lies on the defendant to prove under what circumstances he was made to execute the promissory notes. Since the defendant admitted execution of Exs a-1 to a-5, presumption under Sec 118 of N.I.act would available to the plaintiff. Though the presumption is rebuttable, the defendant is duty bound to place necessary material in the form of evidence to rebut the presumption. 20. In Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company vs. amin Chand Payrelal aIR 1999 SC 1008 it was held as under: '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. 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 dis-entitle 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 beheld 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.' 21. In the present case, the defendant admitted execution of promissory notes, which carries presumption under Section 118 of the N.I. act that the instruments are supported by consideration. a careful scrutiny of pleading and evidence adduced by D.W.1 clearly shows that the defendant failed to produce any convincing evidence to rebut the presumption. The fact that defendant did shares business and was having account in M/s. Vijayalakshmi Investments per se is not sufficient to rebut the presumption. The defendant did not discharge the burden which lies on him. No material was placed to show that during the course of the business only these promissory notes were executed towards security and that no consideration was passed. 22. It is pertinent to mention here that basing on a notice given by the defendant's counsel, the plaintiff also produced his accounts, which reflect payment of amounts to the defendant. In fact Exs.a1 to a5 were also shown in his income tax returns. 22. It is pertinent to mention here that basing on a notice given by the defendant's counsel, the plaintiff also produced his accounts, which reflect payment of amounts to the defendant. In fact Exs.a1 to a5 were also shown in his income tax returns. against this evidence, the defendant having pleaded that the plaintiff firm is in due of Rs.4,00,000/- worth shares, could not produce any evidence. The defendant failed to prove that no consideration was passed under the suit promissory notes, Exs.a-1 to a-5. Non-scribing of name also does not invalidate the promissory note. Hence, the points are answered accordingly. Point No.4: 23. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 24. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, however without costs. 25. as a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.