Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R.Swaminathan, M.Jothiraman, JJ
Tmt.Veerammal – Appellant
Versus
Tmt. M. Murugalakshmi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Appeal Suit has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.39 of 2012, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, dated11.12.2020.
2. The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants herein.
3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred as per their original rank in the suit.
4. The suit in O.S.No.39 of 2012 is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,72,667/- with subsequent interest on the foot of a promissory note executed by the first defendant and her husband, namerly, Kanagaraj in favour of the plaintiff.
5. Case of the plaintiff in brief as follows:-
(i) The first defendant is the wife of the deceased Thiru.Kanagaraj.The defendants 2 & 4 are the daughters of the first defendant and the third defendant is the son of the first defendant. The first defendant and her deceased husband Thiru.Kanagaraj had been running an Industry to manufacture wooden inner boxes. As they were not interested to run the said industry, both the first defendant and her husband Kanagaraj leased out the same to the plaintiff for three years from 07.07.2007 to 06.07.2010
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 burden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption under Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by adducing convincing evidence to prove the non-existence of consideration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden of proof on the defendant to rebut this presump....
The plaintiff must discharge the legal burden of proving consideration for a promissory note, failing which the suit may be dismissed.
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once execution of the promissory note is established, placing the burden on the Defendant to rebut this pr....
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 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 presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Act is a statutory presumption and unless it is rebutted, it has to be presumed that consideration has passed.
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
