Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M. Danial Pratap – Appellant
Versus
R. Venkat Rao – Respondent
Judgment :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALAKRISHNA RAO, J.
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 08-3-2022 in A.S.No.203 of 2017 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 24-8-2017 in O.S.No.93 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
2. The appellants herein are the defendants 1 and 2 and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.93 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.93 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, with a prayer for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,99,660/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 20-01-2012 for Rs.3,50,000/- executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest and for costs.
4. The learned VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned VII Addition
The presumption of consideration in promissory notes under the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on defendants to prove non-existence of consideration.
In promissory note disputes, execution and consideration must be evidenced; failure to rebut presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act affirms the validity of the notes. Upholds....
The court confirmed that once a plaintiff establishes the execution of a promissory note, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove its validity; failure to do so upholds the note's legal presum....
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 court affirmed that in appeals under Section 100 CPC, substantial questions of law must be present for intervention; otherwise, factual findings of lower courts are conclusive.
Point of law: Recovery of amount - Suit promissory note had been fabricated and the litigation launched on that basis - Probable reason as to why the case itself has been foisted
The burden of proof lies on the defendant to dispute the execution of a promissory note and the validity of an assignment, and mere denial without valid evidence cannot be accepted.
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
