Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
Latha Suresh Babu, W/O Suresh Babu – Appellant
Versus
K. Manoharan, S/O Balan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. Badharudeen, J.
This regular first appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the decree and judgment dated 30.10.2009 in O.S. No.7/2006 on the files of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Payyannur. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 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. According to the plaintiff, the defendant and her husband, Sri.Suresh Babu, approached the plaintiff at his residence in the month of January, 2005 and borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in connection with the construction of their house. Further case of the plaintiff is that, the defendant promised to repay the amount within four months and accordingly cheque dated 31.05.2005 drawn on Ex-Service Co-operative Bank, Pazhayangadi was issued in discharge of the said liability. According to the plaintiff, though the cheque was
In a suit based on a dishonored cheque, the plaintiff must prove the underlying transaction, after which presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act apply, and the defendant can rebut these wit....
A plaintiff must provide credible evidence to substantiate claims in a loan agreement; mere assertions without corroboration or examination of witnesses are insufficient for a successful suit.
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.
Where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by....
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....
Presumption of validity under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains unrefuted by the defendant, affirming enforceability of promissory note despite claims of fabrication.
The burden of proof to disprove the existence of consideration for a negotiable instrument lies with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of presumption under Section 118 of th....
The presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused, leading to acquittal if the complainant fails to prove a legally enforceable debt.
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
