VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
P. Samba Siva Rao – Appellant
Versus
S Janardhana Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19-9-2003 in O.S.No.17 of 2000 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District. The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,89,084/- being the amount of principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 13-02-1997 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff’s transferor for Rs.1,10,000/- payable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.
2. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows:
It is pleaded that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- from one Talasila Srinivasa Rao on 13-02-1997 for the purpose of the marriage of his sister in Repalle agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with yearly rests either to the said Srinivasa Rao or to his order when demanded and the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the said Srinivasa Rao on the same day. The defendant failed to repay the suit promissory note debt to the said Srinivasa Rao in spite of several demands made by him. The said Talasila Srinivasa Rao required money and hence he received a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-12-1999 and endorsed the
The promissory note was deemed valid and binding, with the plaintiff successfully proving its execution and consideration.
The preponderance of probabilities and the burden of proof under the Evidence Act are crucial in civil cases.
The court affirmed the validity of a promissory note and clarified the burden of proof regarding consideration, modifying the interest awarded.
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 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 applies to promissory notes once execution is admitted, placing the burden on the defendant to prove otherwise.
The plaintiff's failure to disprove the defense taken by the defendant and the finding of the suit promissory note as not true and valid influenced the court's decision.
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 presumption of consideration under Section 118-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies unless disproven by the defendants.
The presumption of consideration under Section 118-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies unless disproven by the defendants.
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.