JUDGMENT:- This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- with interest and costs.

2. The suit was based on a hundi (a Bill of Exchange) dated 24-11-1966 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- allegedly drawn by respondent No. 1 for money lent as advance to his wife respondent No. 2 who was said to have accepted the Bill. The Bill was protested before the Notary Public. The amount was not re-paid.

3. Respondents denied the execution of the hundi and receipt of any sum thereunder. According to them it was a forged document and the claim was totally false. They pleaded facts to show that this transaction could never have been entered into nor could such a huge sum be advanced without any security.

4. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the oral evidence led by the appellant about the execution of the document by the respondents or payment of the alleged sum to them and dismissed the suit with costs.

5. The initial question for consideration is whether the respondents executed the Bill of Exchange filed by the plaintiff/appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned lower Court ought to have presumed that the document was made or drawn for consideration. It is true that there is presumption attached to a negotiable instrument. But before this presumption can be drawn, execution of the instrument must be admitted or proved. There is no presumption about execution of a negotiable

instrument and in case of a denial by the opposite side the party basing its claim on such instrument must fully prove

its execution.

6. In the present case, respondents in their written statement had in clear term denied their signature and thumb mark on the document. The burden of proving the signature and the thumb mark was therefore on the plaintiff / appellant. Plaintiff/appellant examined himself and three witnesses. Perusal of the statement of the respondent Visvonath (P. W. 1) showed that he did not state, by reference to the document, that the signature and the thumb mark thereon were those of the respondents and were made in his presense. It appears from the statement that the document was not shown to this witness during his examination nor was it proved as an exhibit in his statement. The same omission is apparent in the statement of other three witnesses viz. Cruz (P. W. 2), Capdi (P. W. 3) and Viegas (P. W. 4). None of these witnesses were shown the document in suit in the witness box nor it was affirmed that the signature and thumb mark thereon were that of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

7. As against this D. W. 1 (respondent No. 1) was shown the document in suit and he stated on oath that the signature thereon was not his. Similarly his wife D. W. 2 denied that the thumb impression on the document was hers.

8. According to the plaintiff/appellant the execution of the document was effected before the Notary Public Assistant, Khandeaparkar. This person was not examined. Similarly according to the plaintiff the money was given in presence of one Filipinho Alcantara an employee in the office of the Notary Public. This person was also not examined.

9. The learned trial Judge critically examined the oral evidence adduced by the appellant and found that the witnesses were not reliable. He highlighted some tell-tale contradictions in the statements of the witnesses examined by the appellant. Statement of P. W. 2 Cruz showed that he had gone to one dentist Cosme Barreto in the morning when he met the parties to the suit on the verandah in front of the Notary Public Office. There in his presence plaintiff/appellant handed over some currency notes to defendant/respondent No. 1. The utter falsity of this statement became apparent because according to the statements of the plaintiff/appellant and other witnesses the amount was given in the evening and not in the morning. Moreover the dentist whom this witness Cruz had consulted on th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document