Rebuttable presumption of consideration under negotiable instruments law survives where evidence shows promissory note was issued for property transfer.

Once execution of a negotiable instrument is proved, Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a rebuttable presumption that it was made for consideration. That presumption may be displaced only by credible direct, circumstantial, or probabilistic evidence showing that the pleaded consideration did not exist or that a different consideration was actually proved. On the facts described, the surrounding agreement, correspondence, conduct, and transfer of possession of additional property showed that the promissory note was not a cash loan but was executed in return for that transfer. The presumption therefore remained intact and the note was treated as supported by valid, enforceable consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the promissory note was supported by consideration and, if execution was proved, whether the presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood rebutted.

Analysis: Section 118(a) raises a presumption that a negotiable instrument was made for consideration once its execution is proved. That presumption is rebuttable, and the maker may displace it by direct, circumstantial, or probabilistic evidence showing that the pleaded consideration did not exist or that a different consideration was in fact proved. On the evidence, the surrounding agreement, correspondence, conduct of the parties, and the delivery of additional land and a building established that the promissory note was not a cash loan but was executed in consideration of the transfer of possession of the additional property. The evidence therefore supported a legally enforceable consideration and did not leave room for interference with the concurrent findings below.

Conclusion: The presumption of consideration was not displaced, and the promissory note was held to be supported by valid and enforceable consideration; the challenge to the decree failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of a negotiable instrument is proved, the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) applies, but it can be rebutted only by credible evidence showing the non-existence of consideration or establishing a different factual basis that makes the pleaded consideration improbable.

---