Back
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Vallabhaneni Venkateswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Bobba Vasudevarao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Appellant/Defendant against the Decree and Judgment dated 17.10.2006, in A.S.No.8 of 2003 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court’) confirming the decree and Judgment dated 20.01.2003, in O.S.No.17 of 1997 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada (for short, ‘the trial Court’).
2. The Respondent/Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.17 of 1997 seeking recovery of Rs.50,284/- being the principal and interest from the Defendant based on the promissory note, dt.26.05.1994.
3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.17 of 1997 is expedient to mitigate any potential confusion and better comprehend the case.
4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:
A holder in due course must acquire the instrument before it becomes payable and without knowledge of any defects in title; the defendant failed to prove discharge of the promissory note.
The court established that a holder in due course can recover on a promissory note despite claims of prior discharge if the transfer was valid and supported by consideration.
The validity of a promissory note is upheld when the burden of proof for coercion and lack of consideration is not met by the Defendants.
The presumption of validity of a promissory note under the Negotiable Instruments Act can only be rebutted by the defendant through substantial evidence, which was not provided.
The validity of a promissory note is upheld when supported by evidence of execution and consideration, and a second appeal requires substantial questions of law to be present.
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 presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Act is a statutory presumption and unless it is rebutted, it has to be presumed that consideration has passed.
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
