Back
V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR
Tirigedala Ramanayya – Appellant
Versus
Chenuthala Apparao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Defendant in the suit filed this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit.
2. For hearing before admission, notice was taken out to respondent and the same was personally served on respondent on 06.08.2012. But no appearance has been made at any time thereafter. Therefore this appeal has been taken up for hearing exparte.
3. The controversy between the parties is a debt transaction based on a promissory note. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.249 of 2009 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram stating that on 10.11.2003 defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from him and agreed to repay with interest @ 24% P.A. and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant paid Rs.5,000/- on 30.10.2006 and Rs.100/- on 7.05.2008. On both occasions defendant himself made acknowledgments of such part payments on the reverse side of the promissory note. Subsequently as the defendant failed to repay the balance due, plaintiff got issued a notice of demand dated 03.03.2009 to which there was no response from the defendant and therefore claiming the principal and interest accrued there on t
The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof regarding the authenticity of a promissory note lies with the party alleging forgery, and the evidence must be evaluated on the preponderance of probabil....
The burden of proof of material alteration rests on the party alleging it, and the admissibility of a xerox copy of a document as evidence is limited, especially when there is a possibility of tamper....
The court emphasized that ocular evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses, can outweigh the opinion of a handwriting expert. The court held that the plaintiff's evidence, including the validity o....
The presumption of execution in promissory notes under the Negotiable Instruments Act outweighs claims of fabrication by the defendant without substantial evidence.
The presumption of consideration applies to promissory notes once execution is admitted, placing the burden on the defendant to prove otherwise.
The burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff to establish the execution and validity of the promissory note, and the Court can compare signatures to determine authenticity.
The courts affirmed the validity of a promissory note based on direct evidence, emphasizing that expert testimony is weak and should not override substantive evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
