principles of law outlined in the decisions relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel reported in (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 35 (Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company Vs. Amin Chand Payrelal) and 2018 (3) MWN (Civil) 182 (T.Hemachalam Vs. S.Srinivasan (deceased ) and 4 others) and applying the same to the case at hand, in all, it is found that when the plaintiff has established the execution of the suit promissory note as well as the passing of the consideration as recited therein, the onus is only upon the defendant to establish the absence of consideration or the non execution of the suit promissory note as alleged by him and when with reference to the same, the defendant has not placed any material to rebut the legal presumption that could be taken in favour of the plaintiff, in such view of the matter, the Courts below are found to be justified in accepting the plaintiff's case and rejecting the defence version and in my considered opinion, there is no valid reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Courts below. For the reasons aforestated, in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal. Be that as it may, the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are accordingly, answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sms To 1.The Principal District Court, Ariyalur. 2.The District Munsif Court, Ariyalur. 3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.P.Valliappan, Advocate, S.R.No. 57209 +1cc to Mr.Baskaran, Advocate, S.R.No. 56686 S.A.No.32 of 2016 SJ(CO) GN(16/12/2019)
