Back
R. VIJAYAKUMAR
A. Veerapagu – Appellant
Versus
S. Boomi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2018 passed in A.S.No.82 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.95 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram.)
1. The plaintiff is the appellant.
2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.95 of 2014 before the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.1,61,680/- based upon a pro-note dated 14.11.2011 said to have been executed by the defendant. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant filed A.S.No.82 of 2017 before the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. The learned District Judge was pleased to reverse the judgement and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.
3. The plaintiff had contended that the defendant has received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on 14.11.2011 to meet out his family expenses and executed a pro-note in the presence of attestors. Though several demands were made by the plaintiff, the defendant has neither paid the principal amount nor t
The plaintiff proved the execution of the pro-note and discharged the initial burden of proof, entitling them to a decree for recovery of money.
The burden of proof shifts to the defendant when the court finds that the disputed signatures match the admitted signature. Failure to examine a key witness may not be fatal to the plaintiff's case.
The signature of the maker of a promissory note must be proven for the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act to apply; if the signature is disputed and found to be forged, the note is inv....
The burden of proof shifts to the defendant if the plaintiff proves the execution of the pro-note. Admissibility of private handwriting expert's opinion under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC.
The burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff to establish the execution and validity of the promissory note, and the Court can compare signatures to determine authenticity.
The burden of proof of material alteration rests on the party alleging it, and the admissibility of a xerox copy of a document as evidence is limited, especially when there is a possibility of tamper....
Non-examination of witness to pro-note cannot be held against plaintiff when there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by two Courts on execution of pro-note by defendant in favour of plaintiff....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving due execution of a promissory note and the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment ....
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
