Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Shaik Khaja, S/O Khaja Nizamuddin – Appellant
Versus
Vanukuri Koti Reddy, S/O Siva Reddy – Respondent
Judgment :
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 22-01-2024 in A.S.No.153 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20-4-2019 in O.S.No.583 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.583 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.583 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, with a prayer for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,14,600/- on the basis of two promissory notes dated 10-9-2014 each for Rs.1,50,000/- and for costs of the suit.
4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, decreed the suit with costs for a sum of Rs.5,14,600/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal suit before the first appellate Court. The learned III Additional District
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 presumption of consideration in promissory notes under the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on defendants to prove non-existence of consideration.
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.
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 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.
The validity of a promissory note is established by the plaintiff's evidence of execution and consideration, while the defendant must prove claims of forgery or lack of consideration.
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 High Court, under Section 100 CPC, affirmed findings of lower courts, stating that the burden to prove debt discharge lies with the Defendant, which was not met.
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
