Promissory note presumption under negotiable instruments law shifts the burden to defendants when execution is proved.

Proof of execution of a promissory note attracts the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden to the defendants to rebut it. Here, the signatures were proved through witness evidence and the defendants produced no material to disprove execution or consideration, so the presumption remained unrebutted. A non-impleading objection concerning the defendants' son, not raised at the earliest stage, was treated as waived under Order I Rule 13 CPC and, being non-jurisdictional, could not justify reversal under Section 99 CPC. An alleged criminal acquittal, not proved by record, did not control the civil suit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, once execution of the promissory note was proved, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated and the burden shifted to the defendants; (ii) whether the objection regarding non-impleading of the defendants' son and the reliance on the criminal case outcome could defeat the suit.

Issue (i): Whether, once execution of the promissory note was proved, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated and the burden shifted to the defendants.

Analysis: The signatures on the promissory note were proved through the evidence of the witnesses. Once execution was established, the initial burden stood discharged and the statutory presumption attached. The defendants did not take any steps to disprove the signatures or otherwise rebut the presumption of consideration and execution.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant. The presumption under Section 118 operated and the burden shifted to the defendants, who failed to discharge it.

Issue (ii): Whether the objection regarding non-impleading of the defendants' son and the reliance on the criminal case outcome could defeat the suit.

Analysis: The objection regarding non-impleading was not pleaded at the earliest opportunity and was therefore treated as waived under Order I Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In any event, the omission did not affect jurisdiction or the merits so as to justify reversal under Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The alleged criminal acquittal was also not proved by production of the relevant record and did not control the civil adjudication.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant. The non-impleading objection and reliance on the criminal case outcome did not dislodge the decree.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal succeeded, the appellate reversal was set aside, and the trial court decree for recovery of the suit amount with reduced interest was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of execution of a promissory note attracts the statutory presumption of consideration and shifts the burden to the defendants to rebut it, while an unpleaded and non-jurisdictional non-joinder objection cannot be used to reverse a decree.

---