Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S. Thangapandi – Appellant
Versus
S. Ganesan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of appeal for recovery of money (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim and defendant's counterclaim (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. issues framed by the trial court (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. arguments regarding burden of proof (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. assessment of evidence and application dismissal (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. presumption under negotiable instruments act (Para 15) |
| 7. defendant's burden to rebut presumption (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. establishing validity of promissory note (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 9. dismissal of the appeal (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
1. The unsuccessful defendant has preferred an appeal. The suit is filed for recovery of money with subsequent interest.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred as per their original rank in the suit.
3. The suit in O.S.No.206 of 2017 is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money with subsequent interest on the basis of the promissory note executed by the defendant.
4. Case of the plaintiff in brief as follows:-
(i) The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.17,75,000/- on 04.02.2016 and executed a suit promissory note. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay any amount and the defendant is main
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.
The court confirmed that once a plaintiff establishes the execution of a promissory note, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove its validity; failure to do so upholds the note's legal presum....
The execution of a promissory note is presumed valid under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden to the defendant to disprove it, which was not achieved in this case.
The execution of a promissory note must be proven for the legal presumption of consideration to apply; failure to establish execution results in dismissal of the claim.
The presumption of validity under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires defendants to provide evidence to rebut the execution of a promissory note once established by the plaintiff.
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 court upheld the validity of a promissory note securing a loan, emphasizing the burden of proof on the defendant to negate the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
