JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by the plaintiff against an appellate decree of the Civil Judge, Alwar.
(2.) BHAGWAN Sahai defendant admittedly executed a pronote for Rs. 201/- in favour of Govind Sahai plaintiff on 22-6-56. It is recited in the pronote that the consideration was cash consideration. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint also that he advanced a sum of Rs. 201/- to BHAGWAN Sahai who executed the pronote. The case pleaded by the defendant in his written statement was that he executed the pronote by way of security. He alleged that Govindram was cultivating some land belonging to one Ramcharan, that Ramcharan wanted to get back the land from the plaintiff, that Govindram was willing to give it on condition that Ram Charan gave him half the crop he had sown on the land and that he (Bhagwan Sahai) executed the pronote in suit as security to ensure that Ramcharan gave half the crop to Govindram, The trial court framed the following two issues - (1) Is the pronote without consideration? (2) Is the plaintiff not entitled to maintain the suit on the pronote? The trial court held that the pronote was without consideration and dismissed the suit. The appellate court reversed the finding and held that the pronote was not without consideration. It found that the pronote was executed by the defendant by way of security to ensure that Ramcharan gave half the crop to Govindram as was pleaded in the written statement. It was also pleaded in the written statement that when the crop was ripe Ramcharan offered half of it to Govindram but the later did not accept it. The plaintiff alleged in his statement in court that the consideration for the promissory note was cash. But some of his witnesses admitted that no cash was paid, but that Bhagwan Sahai executed the promissory note by way of security to ensure that Ramcharan gave half the crop to Govindram. Govindram did not say in his statement that Ramcharan did not offer him half the crop. It was not put to him in cross-examination on behalf of the defendant that Ramcharan offered him half the crop because the defendant put forward quite a new story in his statement. The defendant or his witnesses did not say that Ramcharan offered half the crop to Govindram. The appellate court was of the opinion that in view of the fact that the promissory note was executed by way of security, the plaintiff could not get a decree unless it was proved that Ramchander did not give him half the crop. As this was not proved, it dismissed the suit. The contention on behalf of the plaintiff in this revision application is that under sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it was for the defendant to prove that the promissory note was without consideration and as such it was for him to show that Ramcharan offered half the crop to the plaintiff, but the latter declined to accept it. I am unable to accept this contention. "sec. 118 can only help the plaintiff in proving that the promissory note was executed for a valuable consideration. It cannot help him in proving his case beyond that. If the plaintiff had come forward with the case that the promissory note was executed by way of security, as was ultimately held by the learned Civil Judge, he would not be able to get a decree on the basis of the pronote without proving further that the principal committed a breach of the agreement. I accordingly dismiss the revision application. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this revision application. .;