Promissory note execution and statutory presumption of consideration upheld after the defendant failed to rebut liability.

Execution of the promissory note was proved by visual comparison of the disputed signature with admitted signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Once execution was established, the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose that the instrument was for consideration and executed on the stated date. That presumption was rebuttable, but the defendant failed to show a probable defence or disprove consideration on a preponderance of probabilities. The antecedent documents and endorsements indicated outstanding liability, so the plaintiff proved execution and consideration and was entitled to the decree for the suit claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff proved execution and consideration of the suit promissory note and was therefore entitled to recover the suit amount.

Analysis: The disputed signature on the promissory note was compared with admitted signatures available on record under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and was found to tally on visual comparison. Once execution was established, the statutory presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose that the instrument was executed for consideration and on the stated date. Those presumptions were rebuttable, but the defendant had to show a probable defence making the absence of consideration probable on a preponderance of probabilities. The antecedent documents and endorsements showed that the defendant had outstanding liability and had not discharged the loan in full. The defendant failed to disprove consideration or effectively rebut the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The plaintiff succeeded in proving execution and consideration of the suit promissory note and was entitled to the decree for the suit claim.

---