Admission of signature and thumb impression on a promissory note shifts the burden to prove non-consideration.

The respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note (Ex.A1) dated 25.06.2007.

The appellant (defendant), a vehicle broker, admitted his signature and thumb impression on the document but contended it was a blank signed paper given as security during second-hand vehicle transactions.

The appellant had sent a lawyer's notice (Ex.A5) in 2008 claiming the plaintiff owed him money regarding a tipper lorry dispute, to which the plaintiff did not reply.

Both the Trial Court (O.S.No.663 of 2009) and the First Appellate Court (A.S.No.9 of 2016) decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, prompting this Second Appeal.

1. Whether the lower courts were justified in concluding that the appellant failed to rebut the legal presumption of Ex.A1 in light of documents Ex.B2 to B6 and B11?

2. Whether the First Appellate Court's rejection of applications for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC (regarding audio recordings of a witness) was legally sustainable?

Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which mandates a legal presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration.

The precedent Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal (AIR 1999 SC 1008), which establishes that while the presumption is rebuttable, the defendant must prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances that make its existence improbable.

Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, which restricts additional evidence in appellate courts unless the party proves the evidence was unavailable despite due diligence or was wrongly refused by the trial court.

The Court observed that once the appellant admitted his signature and thumb impression on the promissory note, the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act shifted the burden of proof to him.

The Court found the appellant's defense—that the note was a blank security document linked to a tipper lorry dispute—improbable because his own 2008 notice (Ex.A5) made no mention of such blank notes being held by the plaintiff.

On the issue of additional evidence, the Court noted that the appellant had already unsuccessfully challenged the rejection of the audio evidence in a previous Revision Petition (C.R.P. No. 1113 of 2018).

The Court held that the appellant failed to meet the criteria of Order 41 Rule 27, noting that the "audio conversation" was an attempt to fill gaps in the case after concurrently losing in lower courts.

The testimony of the scribe and witnesses (P.W.2 & P.W.3) stood firm despite the "stock witness" allegation.

It held that the appellant failed to rebut the legal presumption of consideration and that the rejection of additional evidence was justified as the appellant had "slept over his rights" during the trial.

The concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld, and the respondent was granted the relief of recovery of money with costs.