Back
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J
Varatharajan – Appellant
Versus
Santhamani [died] – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
Challenging the decree and judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit filed for recovery of a sum of 15,79,500/- along with interest at the rate of 12% on the principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with costs, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff.
2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is none other than the son-law of the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant, for her medical expenses, borrowed a sum of Rs.15 lakhs on 23.01.2017 and handed over Ex.A.1 post dated cheque dated 23.03.2017. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned as account closed. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 23.06.2017 which has not been replied. As the first defendant died, the defendants 2 to 5 have been impleaded as her legal representatives.
4. The first defendant has filed a written statement before her death. According to her, the plaintiff being her son-in-law was helping her to receive the interest amount from the bank. For that purpose, she used to give blank cheques. One such blank cheq
The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of consideration for the cheque, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the legal presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to issued cheques, placing the burden on the defendant to prove otherwise.
The execution of a promissory note establishes a legal presumption of consideration that the defendant must rebut; failure to do so results in judgment favoring the plaintiff.
The court affirmed that a suit based on a dishonoured cheque is valid under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring proof of the original transaction.
once execution of the promissory note is admitted, or proved, the presumption under Section 118(a) of the Act would arise that it is supported by consideration. It is a rebuttable presumption. The ac....
The execution of a pronote is presumed valid under the Negotiable Instruments Act unless the defendant provides sufficient evidence to disprove consideration.
A drawer of a cheque is presumed liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance for debt repayment, established under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The statutory presumption under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act establishes that the accused must rebut the existence of a debt with credible evidence; mere denial is insuffici....
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
