Presumption of consideration in pronote suits remains intact when execution is proved and no substantial question of law arises.

Once execution of a pronote is proved by oral and documentary evidence, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises a presumption that consideration existed. The defendant failed to rebut that presumption by effective evidence, including any expert challenge to the signature or convincing material on prior borrowals. The plea that the pronote lacked particulars did not displace the findings accepted by both courts below. In the absence of perversity or any substantial question of law, the limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC does not justify interference with concurrent findings of fact.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings that the pronote was executed by the defendant for consideration, and that no interference was warranted in second appeal, called for reversal.

Analysis: The plaintiff established execution of the pronote through oral and documentary evidence, and the defendant failed to take effective steps to disprove his signature or obtain expert opinion. Once execution was proved, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of consideration. The defendant did not produce convincing material to rebut that presumption. The plea of absence of particulars of prior borrowals did not displace the evidence accepted by both courts below. In the absence of perversity or a substantial question of law, the limited jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not permit interference with concurrent findings of fact.

Conclusion: The finding that the pronote was supported by consideration was upheld, and the challenge in second appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit on a pronote, once execution is proved, the presumption of consideration arises under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and concurrent findings on execution and consideration will not be disturbed in second appeal absent perversity or a substantial question of law.

---