Back
ASHOK S. KINAGI
Sannegowda – Appellant
Versus
Ashwathamma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ashok S. Kinagi, J.
1. This second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014, passed in R.A.No. 598/2014 (Old No. 32/2011) by the Fast Track Court, Hunsur and the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2011, passed in O.S.No. 01/2010 by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Hunsur.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff.
3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:
The acknowledgment of debt for limitation purposes must be explicit, written, and made before the expiration of the limitation period; mere disputes do not suffice.
The plaintiff must discharge the legal burden of proving consideration for a promissory note, failing which the suit may be dismissed.
The court established that the limitation period for recovery of loans starts from the date of the loan agreement, with the first day excluded in the computation.
The provision of clear documentation in loan transactions is essential for recovery, and the burden of proof lies with the debtor to demonstrate repayment.
The presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies when the execution of a promissory note is admitted, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove non-....
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Act is a statutory presumption and unless it is rebutted, it has to be presumed that consideration has passed.
An acknowledgment of debt must be in writing and signed to extend the limitation period; unsigned entries are legally insufficient.
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
