Back
G. JAYACHANDRAN, C. KUMARAPPAN
K. Seenivasan – Appellant
Versus
Shanthi Joseph, W/o. Late T. E. Joseph – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree, dated 26.08.2011, made in O.S.No.63 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul.)
Dr. G. Jayachandran & C. Kumarappan, JJ.
1. The Appeal is directed against the dismissal of the money suit instituted based on pronotes. The aggrieved plaintiff being the appellant has also filed the Miscellaneous Petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. to receive additional documents.
2. The facts canvassed in the pleadings:-
2.1. Plaint averments after amendment read as under:-
(i) T.E.Joseph (deceased) borrowed a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.10.2005 to meet out his family expenses and business expansion and executed a pronote agreeing to repay on demand the principal with 1% interest per mensem. Again, on 15.10.2005, borrowed another sum of Rs.9,50,000/- with similar promise and executed an another pronote. The defendants are the wife and children of the deceased T.E.Joseph. They are aware of the borrowing and execution of the two pronotes in favour of the plaintiff. The said Joseph, in order to discharge the loan with interest gave a cheque, d
The plaintiff must prove the foundational fact of execution of promissory notes to claim the benefit of presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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 plaintiff must discharge the legal burden of proving consideration for a promissory note, failing which the suit may be dismissed.
The appellate court found the promissory note valid and supported by consideration, reversing the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof regarding the authenticity of a promissory note lies with the party alleging forgery, and the evidence must be evaluated on the preponderance of probabil....
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is robust against mere denial by the borrower of signing promissory notes.
The plaintiff failed to prove the validity of the promissory note, which was deemed forged, leading to the appeal's success.
The presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies unless rebutted, and the burden of proving fraud lies with the defendant, who failed to provide evidenc....
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
