IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
Vuggirala Udaya Chandra Rao, S/o. Venkaiah – Petitioner
Versus
Sunkara Venkateswarlu, S/o. Kotaiah – Respondents
First Appeal No: 401 of 2012
Decided On : 04-08-2023
Promissory Notes - Recovery of Debt - Negotiable Instrument Act, 1991 - Sec. 87, Sec. 118 - Evidence Act - Sec. 114 - Plaintiff failed to establish passing of consideration for promissory notes - Defendant successfully rebutted presumption of consideration - Trial Court judgment set aside
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.6,86,666/- with interest and costs from defendant based on two promissory notes - Defendant contended suit was filed in collusion for wrongful gain - Defendant claimed lack of correlation between pleadings and plaintiff's evidence, and lack of consideration passed to defendant
Finding of the Court:
Trial Court decreed suit in favor of plaintiff - Appellate Court found plaintiff failed to establish passing of consideration for promissory notes - Defendant successfully rebutted presumption of consideration - Trial Court judgment set aside, suit dismissed with costs
Issues: Whether plaintiff established passing of consideration for promissory notes - Whether Trial Court judgment warranted interference
Ratio Decidendi: Plaintiff's evidence contradicted case pleaded in the plaint - Plaintiff failed to establish passing of consideration for promissory notes - Defendant successfully rebutted presumption of consideration - Trial Court judgment based on erroneous appreciation of evidence
Final Decision: Appeal allowed, Trial Court judgment set aside, suit dismissed with costs
JUDGMENT:
1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the decree and Judgment dated 15.03.2012 in O.S.No.539 of 2008 passed by the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur (for short, ‘trial court’). Respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit, who filed the suit in O.S.No.539 of 2008 seeking recovery of Rs.6,86,666/-with interest and costs from the defendant based on two promissory notes.
2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The facts leading to the present Appeal, in a nutshell, are as under:
4. In the written statement, the defendant contends that the suit is filed in collusion with V.Srinivasa Rao to have wrongful gain. There was no prior demand made before the suit was filed. He lacks wordly wise knowledge, having only completed education upto SSC. He did real estate business in the name of Renuka Real Estate along with Srinivasa Rao and Pothuraju Venkateswarlu. Due to his close relationship with them and their better education, he used to follow their instructions. They convinced him that his signature was necessary for real estate transactions and trusted them and signed on blank papers including blank promissory notes. Later, differences arose with Srinivasarao and the defendant stopped his business. When he asked for the papers containing his signatures, Srinivasarao and Venkateswarlu informed him that the papers had been torn into pieces and there was nothing to worry about. On enquiry, the defendant learnt that they had been using the signed papers to create forged documents and file suits in the name of their nominees. Previously, the Srinivasarao had filed several suits in various courts. The defendant filed his written statements and contested those suits. Plaintiff never approached the defendant and never paid any amount to this defendant. As such, there is no basis for him to choose to return any advance amount and offer to execute promissory notes does not arise.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
(2) To what relief?
6. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B.3 were marked.
7. After completion of trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs for Rs.6,86,666/-, and the defendant shall pay the same together with interest @ 6% p.a., on Rs.4,00,000/-from the date of suit till payment.
8. Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contends that the suit promissory notes are concocted and pointed out lack of correlation between the pleadings and the plaintiff’s evidence. Even if it is assumed that the appellant executed the suit promissory notes, they are considered void as they were materially altered making them fall
K.P.O Moideenkutty Hajee V. Pappu Manjooran and another
Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Vs Amin Chand Payrelal
Plaintiff must establish passing of consideration for promissory notes, and failure to do so shifts evidential burden to plaintiff
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden of proof on the defendant to rebut this presump....
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once execution of the promissory note is established, placing the burden on the Defendant to rebut this pr....
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the defendant can discharge the burden of proof by demonstrating the improbability of considera....
The burden of proof to disprove the existence of consideration for a negotiable instrument lies with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of presumption under Section 118 of th....
The burden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption under Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by adducing convincing evidence to prove the non-existence of consideration.
The appellate court found the promissory note invalid due to lack of consideration and conflicting evidence, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
The court affirmed that promissory notes executed without consideration are unenforceable, especially when superseded by a valid memorandum of understanding.
(1) A Partner cannot file suit with regard to business transaction, except to seek rendering of accounts and dissolution of Partnership.(2) Pleadings – When evidence is not in line with pleadings and....
The plaintiff must discharge the legal burden of proving consideration for a promissory note, failing which the suit may be dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.