JUDGMENT Bennet, J.
1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against a decree passed by the lower appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued on a promissory note dated 4th January 1928, and a receipt on which he claimed that on that date Rs. 2,000 cash had been lent to the defendants. The defendants on the other hand admitted the execution of the promissory note and the receipt, but they denied that there was a loan of Rs. 2,000 cash and they pleaded in para. 4 of their additional pleas that their wives had undertaken to execute a sale-deed in respect of a shop and house in favour of one Daroga Prasad and that as the wives did not execute the sale-deed, for the satisfaction that they would not deviate from the contract Daroga Prasad obtained the promissory note and receipt in question in favour of plaintiff from the defendants. The evidence was conflicting and the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendants had failed to prove their allegations. The lower appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that there was a cash payment of Rs. 2,000. The judgment terminated with this conclusion:
I think on these findings the defendants having admitted execution the suit should be decreed, for the defendants have certainly failed to prove their ease that no consideration passed and the burden of proving that case was on them.
2. Under Section 113(a), Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. That presumption applies in the present case. Therefore the decree of the lower appellate Court was correct. We dismiss this second appeal with costs.