Presumption of consideration under negotiable instrument law survives unless rebutted by credible defence; concurrent findings stand in second appeal.

Admission of execution of a negotiable instrument attracts the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the burden shifts to the defence to rebut it by a probable and credible case on preponderance of probabilities. Unproved assertions of prior settlement, unsupported by reliable witnesses or documents linking payments to the suit debt, do not displace that presumption. In second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interference is confined to substantial questions of law; concurrent findings based on evidence and correct application of burden and presumption principles will not be disturbed absent perversity or legal error.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood rebutted by the defence evidence; (ii) whether the concurrent findings of the courts below could be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood rebutted by the defence evidence.

Analysis: Execution of the promissory note was admitted, attracting the statutory presumption that it was supported by consideration. The defence was required to displace that presumption by showing a probable and acceptable case of non-consideration or circumstances making such consideration improbable. The Court found that the defence version of a prior mediation and settlement was not proved by reliable evidence, that the best supporting witnesses were not examined, and that the account extracts relied upon did not establish that the suit promissory note arose out of the alleged settlement or that the alleged payments were referable to the suit debt. The plaintiff's evidence and the admissions of the defendants, read with the statutory presumption, were sufficient to sustain the claim.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not rebutted, and the finding on consideration was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below could be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Interference in second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law. The Court found that the findings of the courts below were based on pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and proper application of the governing principles on burden of proof and presumption. No perversity, misreading of evidence, or legal error warranting interference was shown. The objections raised were essentially factual and did not disclose any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: No ground was made out for interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the concurrent findings were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the plaintiff was affirmed and the second appeal failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of a negotiable instrument is admitted, the statutory presumption of consideration operates, and it can be displaced only by a probable defence proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities; absent such rebuttal, concurrent factual findings will not be disturbed in second appeal.

---