High Court sets aside lower court's judgment in promissory note dispute, burden on defendant to prove absence of consideration.

The High Court allowed the appeal in a dispute over a promissory note, setting aside the lower appellate court's judgment. The court held that the burden to prove the absence of consideration lies with the defendant and that failure to produce account books does not necessarily imply lack of consideration. As the defendant failed to provide convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of consideration under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the plaintiff's suit based on the promissory note was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dispute over a promissory note and consideration.
2. Failure to produce account books as evidence of consideration.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the judgment setting aside a previous decree in a suit for recovery of a sum of money based on a promissory note. The defendant contested the suit, claiming the promissory note was forged and not supported by consideration. The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, but the appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to prove consideration as he did not produce his accounts. The key issue was whether the promissory note was supported by consideration as per section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The lower appellate court relied on precedents to hold that the plaintiff's failure to produce accounts raised doubts about consideration. However, the High Court found this reasoning flawed. It clarified that the burden to show the absence of consideration is on the defendant. The court emphasized that the defendant must provide convincing evidence to rebut the presumption under section 118. As the defendant failed to do so, the court held that the plaintiff's suit based on the promissory note should be decreed. The court rejected the adverse inference drawn due to the non-production of account books, as it was not established that the plaintiff's money-lending business was linked to the promissory note in question.

3. The court distinguished the facts of the case from previous judgments and highlighted that the plaintiff's conduct regarding the accounts did not warrant an adverse inference. It reiterated that the presumption under section 118 can only be rebutted by the defendant with convincing evidence. Since the defendant failed to rebut this presumption, the court concluded that the plaintiff's suit was valid and the judgment of the lower appellate court was set aside. The appeal was allowed, confirming the decree passed by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.

---