Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
Suni Chacko W/o. Saji Chacko – Appellant
Versus
Annamma Alex W/o. K L Alexander – Respondent
What is the burden of proof required to establish the loan transaction and source of funds in a suit based on a negotiable instrument? What is the role and effect of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a cheque-based suit? Should the appellate court interfere with a trial court’s finding when the plaintiff’s evidence regarding the transaction and cheque issuance is weak or unproven?
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
JUDGMENT
This regular first appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the decree and judgment dated 18.08.2018 in O.S. No.4/2017 on the files of the Sub Court, Punalur. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff as well as the learned counsel who filed claim petition on behalf of Sri.Sreejith, claiming absolute title over the property attached by this Court by an interim order. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court.
3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as “plaintiff†and “defendant†with reference to their status before the trial court.
4. Short facts:- The plaintiff instituted this suit to realize Rs.25 Lakh alleged to be borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff, during the period between March, 2014 and June, 2016. According to the plaintiff, in discharge of the said sum, the defendant issued cheque dated 15.11.2016 drawn on Federal Bank, Kottarakkara Branch for Rs.25 Lakh. When the cheque was presented for collection, the s
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the transaction and source of funds for a cheque in a suit based on a negotiable instrument.
The presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to issued cheques, placing the burden on the defendant to prove otherwise.
Presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act imply that once cheque issuance is admitted, it is presumed to discharge a legally enforceable debt, placing the burden on the accused to provide evi....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a probable defense.
once execution of the promissory note is admitted, or proved, the presumption under Section 118(a) of the Act would arise that it is supported by consideration. It is a rebuttable presumption. The ac....
The presumption in favor of the complainant under the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the standard of proof required to prove a defense in a criminal case is preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption of consideration under Section 139 of the N.I. Act shifts the burden to the accused to prove non-existence of debt, which was not done in this case.
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
