Rebuttable presumption on promissory notes fails where consideration and supply are not proved and material records are withheld.

The statutory presumption arising from an admitted promissory note is rebuttable and may be displaced by circumstantial evidence and adverse inference from suppression of material documents. On the facts, the borrower had not been paid on the date of execution, the alleged later payment to the supplier was not proved by pay order particulars, and actual supply of the pumpset was not established. The withholding of inspection notes further weakened the claim. Once the presumption was rebutted, the burden shifted back to the bank, which failed to prove consideration and supply. The decree could not therefore be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statutory presumption arising from the promissory note stood rebutted, and whether the bank had proved consideration and the supply of the pumpset so as to sustain the decree on the suit claim.

Analysis: The promissory note was admitted, but the surrounding facts showed that no amount was paid to the borrower on the date of execution and that the amount was allegedly paid later to the supplier. No pay order particulars were produced, and no evidence was adduced to prove actual supply of the pumpset. The inspection notes, which were said to contain relevant particulars, were also withheld despite specific dispute on that aspect. The statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Evidence Act is rebuttable, and it can be displaced by circumstantial evidence and adverse inference from suppression of material documents. On the evidence, the burden shifted back to the plaintiff bank, and the bank failed to discharge it.

Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted, the plaintiff bank failed to prove consideration and supply of the pumpset, and the decree of the courts below could not be sustained.

---