Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
3369 - T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
K.Venkatapaparao – Appellant
Versus
K Ramulu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellants / Appellants / Defendants against the Decree and Judgment dated 09.06.2003, in A.S.No.75 of 1998 on the file of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam (for short, ‘the First Appellate Court’) confirming the decree and Judgment dated 20.04.1998, in O.S.No.108 of 1993 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).
2. The Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.108 of 1993 seeking recovery of Rs.39,670.72 ps., being the principal and interest from the Defendants based on the promissory note, dated 20.06.1991.
3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate 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:
On 20.06.1991, Defendants 1 and 2 borrowed Rs.30,200/-, agreeing to pay with 14 % annual interest, and executed a promissory note infavour of the Plaintiff. On 19.07.1993, the Plaintiff sent a registered notice to the Defendants deman
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 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 burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff to establish the execution and validity of the promissory note, and the Court can compare signatures to determine authenticity.
The courts affirmed the validity of a promissory note based on direct evidence, emphasizing that expert testimony is weak and should not override substantive evidence.
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 admission of execution of a promissory note shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that no consideration was passed.
The mere admission of a signature on a Promissory Note does not invoke the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without proof of execution and passing of consideration.
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 burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the claim, and the court may rely on a preponderance of probabilities to reach a decision.
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
