Promissory note liability and proof on balance of probabilities upheld despite defence of guarantor signing and blank filling.

The defendant admitted signing the loan application and promissory note but argued that he had signed only as a guarantor and that the documents were later filled in by the plaintiff. The Madras HC found that the defendant failed to examine the persons said to be the real borrowers or other supporting witnesses, while the plaintiff's case was corroborated by prior notice and the documentary record. Even without drawing the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the evidence was sufficient on a balance of probabilities to prove the claim. The defendant's admissions in cross-examination and the police enquiry did not displace that evidence, so no interference with the first appellate decree was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant was liable under the suit promissory note and whether the second appeal warranted interference with the first appellate decree.

Analysis: The defendant admitted his signatures in the loan application and promissory note, but contended that the documents were signed only as a guarantor and were later filled up by the plaintiff. The Court held that the defendant did not examine the persons whose names were put forward as the real borrowers or guarantor-related witnesses, while the plaintiff's version was supported by the prior notice and the documentary record. Even if the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not drawn, the evidence on record was sufficient to establish the plaintiff's claim on the standard of balance of probabilities. The circumstances relied on by the defendant, including the cross-examination admissions and the police enquiry, did not dislodge the plaintiff's case.

Conclusion: The plaintiff's claim was proved, and no interference with the first appellate decree was warranted.

---