V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
A. Narendra – Appellant
Versus
P. Venkata Suryanarayana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.)
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 29-4-2005 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, in O.S. No.29 of 2001. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant died and the 2nd appellant herein, who is his wife, is brought on record as his legal representative by order dated 20-3-2024 in I.A. No.3 of 2024.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows:
(b) It is pleaded that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- from one Kaliki Papi Reddy on 15-4-1998 and executed a promissory note on the same day in his favour undertaking to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to him or his order on demand. The defendant did not pay any amount due in spite of several demands. Therefore, the said Papi Reddy got issued a legal notice dated 24-02-1999 to the defendant calling upon him to
Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani, 2003 INSC 206
Kundan Lal Rallaram v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay
Govinda (sic, Ramchandra Rambux) v. Champa Bai, 1964 INSC 37
Chaturbhuj Pande v. Collector, Raigarh, 1968 INSC 159
Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal, 1999 INSC 69
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 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 Act is a statutory presumption and unless it is rebutted, it has to be presumed that consideration has passed.
The court upheld the validity of promissory notes, emphasizing the defendant's failure to prove forgery or lack of capacity to lend, thus confirming the trial court's judgment.
The court affirmed the validity of a promissory note and clarified the burden of proof regarding consideration, modifying the interest awarded.
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 court found the plaintiff failed to establish the execution of the promissory note, concluding the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be in....
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 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 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.
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.