Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
M.C. Ravikumar – Appellant
Versus
V. Sukuna Venkatesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendant's denial of liability (Para 3) |
| 2. trial court's dismissal reasoning (Para 5) |
| 3. points for consideration (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. execution of pronote established (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. legal presumption of consideration (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. shifting burden of proof (Para 13) |
| 7. appeal allowed, suit decreed (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit filed for recovery of money on the basis of a Pronote dated 10.01.2007, the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the present appeal.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for her family expenses and also for improvement of her business and also to meet her other requirements and executed a Pronote dated 10.07.2007. As the amount is not paid, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated on 03.10.2007. Despite notice, the defendant did not pay the money. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.12840 of 2010 before the City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. According to the defendant, she had no personal business with the plaintiff and she is only a house wife. She has stated that her husband had borrowed a hand loan from the plaintiff for S.V.Home for aged, a registered Char
The execution of a Pronote establishes a legal presumption of consideration, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant to disprove it.
The execution of a pronote is presumed valid under the Negotiable Instruments Act unless the defendant provides sufficient evidence to disprove consideration.
The burden of proof regarding execution lies on the plaintiff; mere denial by the defendant does not suffice for presumption of consideration.
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 execution of a pronote creates a presumption of borrowing and debt, and the burden of proof is on the party seeking to rebut this presumption.
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 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.
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
