or illegality arrived at the conclusion that the evidence of PW1 amply had driven home the fact that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and in consideration of the same executed the pro-note. Such finding of facts was buttressed and fortified by the presumption contemplated under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Over and above that, Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also would come to the rescue of the plaintiff. Without admitting even assuming that the defendant signed only in the blank stamped paper and the plaintiff was entitled to get it filled up and treat it as a pro-note. However, based on such presumption alone, both the courts have not decided the lis. The evidence of the witness to Ex.A1 is on a better footing than the evidence of the scribe of Ex.A1. Here the scribe had not stated that he personally knew the alleged transaction as put forth by the defendant. He would only depose that PW1 alone asked him to scribe the pro-note by approaching him singly, for which he responded positively. In such a case, he would not be able to speak about the real nature of the transaction. However, PW2's evidence bears out the testimony of PW1. Ex.B1 is a mere discharge receipt of the year 2000; whereas the suit transaction is pertaining to the year 2003.
