JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 25/01/2018 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.24B/13, whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed for Rs.10 Lakhs along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 08/03/2013.

2. The defendant being aggrieved by such judgment and decree has filed this appeal.

3. The plaintiff Smt. Purnima filed a suit on the ground that a joint account was opened by her mother Indurani Dhadda & father B.L. Dhadda on 04/02/2011 at Bank of Baroda, Raipur. The account was to be operated by either of the account holder. Plaintiff further stated that the defendant firm through his partner Suresh Atlani requested for a loan from plaintiff of Rs.10 Lakh on 17/02/2011. It was further stated that defendant agreed to pay an interest @ 18% p.a. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs by way of loan was advanced to Suresh Atlani and in the said cheque the joint account holder Smt. Indurani Dhadda had signed it and after receipt of the money a promissory note of 17/02/2011 was executed by Suresh Atlani in favour of Smt. Indurani Dhadda.

4. The plaintiff contended that on two occasions i.e. on 23-2-2011 and 23-5-2011 an amount of Rs.27,000/-, respectively, was paid by way of interest but subsequently no repayment was made. Then plaintiff made a demand of Rs.10 Lakhs to liquidate the loan, wherein the defendant had issued a cheque of Rs.10 Lakhs on 18/06/2012 in name of her mother. The said cheque was deposited in the joint account of the plaintiff, her mother and father but it got dishonoured. Thereafter, legal notice was served to the defendant on 04/07/2012 despite that no payment was made, therefore, eventually, the suit was filed.

5. Per contra, the defendant denied to have received the loan and consequently denied to have executed the promissory note. The averments and allegation also of payment of Rs.27000/- at two occasions by way of interest was also denied. In continuation, the service of notice and the reply too was also denied.

6. On the basis of the pleading, issues were framed and plaintiff examined herself and the defendant examined witness Suresh Atlani. The trial Court came to a finding of transaction took place in between the parties and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Hence this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the institution of the suit by Smt. Purnima Jain would be bad as neither any transaction took place in between Smt. Purnima Jain and the appellant nor any promissory note was executed in her favour. He would further submit that the promissory note (Ex. P/8) would show that it was in name of Smt. Indurani Dhadda and there being no endorsement in the promissory note, plaintiff cannot be a holder in due course. He would further submit that learned trial Court has completely misdirected itself to draw a presumption under Section 118(g) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “NI Act”) which is rebuttable in nature and the very document on which the suit is based i.e. promissory note and subsequent cheque which was issued in name of the mother of the plaintiff would show that there was no privity of transaction in between plaintiff and defendant. He placed his reliance in the case of Pradeep Kumar and Another v Postmaster General and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 351 to submit that holder in due course cannot be presumed and would submit that in order to be a holder in due course either it should be for consideration and the exchange of instrument should be before the amount became payable. He would further submit that in this case, the amount became payable on 18/06/2021 when the cheque issued in favour of the mother of the plaintiff was dishonoured. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be a holder in due course and the case is liable to be dismissed.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the ground which is raised before thi