The execution of a pronote is presumed valid under the Negotiable Instruments Act unless the defendant provides sufficient evidence to disprove consideration.

JUDGMENT :

Challenge has been made to the decree and judgment of the Trial Court in decreeing the suit for recovery of money.

2. The parties are hitherto referred to as per their own ranking.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.8 lakhs for his family and business expenses on 14.03.2012 and executed a pronote. Since, the defendant has not paid either the principal nor the interest, on the repeated demands, the defendant issued two cheques bearing Nos.176463 for a sum of Rs.575000/- dated 10.05.2013 and 176453 for a sum of Rs.430000/- dated 27.03.2013. When the plaintiff presented the cheque dated 10.05.2013, the same was dishonored and returned with endorsement "Account No.6951710000068 was closed". Hence, the plaintiff did not present the other cheque. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money.

4. It is the case of the defendant in written statement that the plaintiff is running finance companies and also chit business, besides, the defendant was was a subscriber to the chit funds and also was in the habit of receiving money from the plaintiff. There were money transactions between 2007 to 2013 between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the month of November 2012, he was a successful bidder to chit, for the purpose of security, the defendant has handed over unfilled pro-notes and two blank cheques. According to him, he is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.3,05,340/- towards chit amount. Therefore, according to him, the suit pronotes have been fabricated and the plaintiff had filed the suit.

5. On the basis of pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

a. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim for the amount?

b. Whether the suit deed is fabricated?

c. To what relief?

6. On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff was examined as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. On the side of the defendant, defendant was examined as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3.

7. The Trial Court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidences, decreed the suit and directed the defendant to pay the suit amount a sum of Rs.10,31,600/- with subsequent interest @ 9 % pa for the principal amount a sum of Rs.8 lakhs from the date of filing suit to date of decree and thereafter @ 6% pa till realisation of amount. Hence, the appeal.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was a chit transaction between the parties, at that time only blank cheques and suit pro notes were given. The evidence of PW1 itself shows that there was chit transaction. Ex.B1 marked in the cross examination proves the above fact. Further, the plaintiff has not proved the passing of consideration. It is the further contention that the notice of dishonour has not been issued which is mandatory as per Section 93 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the Trial Court has not appreciated the matter. Hence, seeks to interfere with the judgment.

9. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the execution of pronote and the issuance of cheques have been clearly proved. Defendant has not brought any materials to dislodge the legal presumption. The very defence set up by the defendant is that there was money transaction till 2013 and the defendant had handed over the pronotes and cheques to the plaintiff. Therefore, when the defendant himself has admitted the issuance of cheques and pronote, there was passing of consideration. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

10. In light of the above, the following points arises for consideration:-

i). Whether the execution of the pronote has been established in the manner known to law?

ii). Whether the legal presumption attached to the Negotiable Instruments Act