Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, J, P.KRISHNA KUMAR
Sunny Michale, S/O P.V. Michale – Appellant
Versus
Prasanna Kumari, [Died, Lrs Impleaded As Addl. R8 & R9] – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court found inconsistencies in the plaintiff's evidence, undermining the claim's credibility. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. the appeal was dismissed based on the trial court's findings regarding the lack of proof. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
Sathish Ninan, J.
The suit for recovery of money under a promissory note was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff is in appeal.
2. According to the plaintiff, on 20.04.2007 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 9 lakhs from the plaintiff and executed Ext.A1 promissory note. Alleging failure on the part of the defendant to wipe off the liability, the suit is filed.
3. The defendants denied the alleged borrowal and also the execution of Ext.A1 promissory note. The signature thereon was denied. It was contended that Ext.A1 agreement is a forged document created at the instance of the money lender viz. one Saseendra Babu. The defendants challenged the financial capacity of the plaintiff to advance the amount.
4. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the transaction and accordingly dismissed the suit.
5. We have heard learned counsel on either side.
6. The points that arise fo
The plaintiff failed to prove the execution and authenticity of the promissory note, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
![Adam Veettil Muhammed Saleem Madani, [Died; LR Impleaded] vs Perinkadakattil Kamal Sherif, S/O.Veerankutty - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2001](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Kerala_3.png)
The mere execution of an agreement does not establish its contents or consideration; the plaintiff bears the burden to provide evidence, differing significantly from provisions concerning negotiable ....
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the execution of the promissory note and passing of consideration, and the credibility of witnesses and consistency of evidence are crucial in....
Court deemed the execution of the pronote unproven due to insufficient evidence by the plaintiff and reliance on expert evidence favoring the defendant.
The appellant must provide conclusive evidence to prove execution of a promissory note when contested, especially including expert testimony if necessary.
The presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises when execution of a promissory note is established, placing the burden on the defendant to disprove the transaction.
The presumption of validity of a promissory note under the Negotiable Instruments Act can only be rebutted by the defendant through substantial evidence, which was not provided.
The preponderance of probabilities and the burden of proof under the Evidence Act are crucial in civil cases.
The presumption of validity for negotiable instruments is established unless effectively rebutted by the defendant, who bears the burden of proof regarding allegations of forgery.
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
