IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
B.Balaji singh – Appellant
Versus
Jayanthi Naga Sudha Lakshmi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.)
1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Respondent/ Defendant against the Decree and Judgment dated 25.11.2002, in A.S.No.50 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty (for short, ‘the First Appellate Court’) reversing the decree and Judgment dated 02.11.2000, in O.S.No.40 of 1999 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).
2. The Respondent/Appellant is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.40 of 1999 seeking recovery of Rs.33,690/-, the principal and interest, from the Defendant based on the promissory note dated 25.04.1996.
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 25.04.1996, Defendant borrowed Rs.20,000/- in cash from Plaintiff for personal necessity and executed a promissory note in favour of Plaintiff on the same day, agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum. Despite several demands for repayment and a registered notice issued to
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving due execution of a promissory note and the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment ....
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.
A plaintiff in a promissory note case bears the burden of proof for execution, while the defendant alleging forgery must provide adequate evidence to rebut the presumption of validity.
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.