( 51 ) TO find the true scope of section 118 (a) section 14 of the Act which deals with negotiation has essentially to be looked into. Unless the negotiable instrument is shown to have been transferred so as to constitute the transferees as the "holder" thereof an instrument would not be found to have been negotiated. The presumptions in section 118 being rules of evidence cannot supersede the requirements of substantive provisions in the Act and section 14 is such a provision. If section 14 and 118 (a) of the Act are harmonised a suit for the sum specified in a cheque would be decreed only if the plaintiff proves that at the time the cause of action arose he was a person entitled to receive or recover the amount. The presumption in clause (g) in section 118 is distinct from that in clause (a) and would be available only where a person has already proved that he is a holder within section 8 of the Act. There is no intendment that the two presumptions in clauses (a) and (g) of section 118 of the Act be combined to displace the need of proving the requirements of sections 8 and 14 of the Act. The limitations in section 8 would allow only a person who is a "holder" to file the suit. A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document