IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.HEMALATHA
S. Santhosh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
V. Sakthivel – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. HEMALATHA, J.
1. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.343 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore. The respondent / plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- from the appellant / defendant together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of plaint. The suit is based on the promissory note dated 29.04.2004 (Ex.A1).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would also be indicated.
3. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :
The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 29.04.2004 and executed a promissory note (Ex.A1) on the same day promising to repay the principal together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on demand by the plaintiff or to his order. Though the plaintiff made repeated demands to the defendant to repay the amount due under the promissory note (Ex.A1) together with interest, the defendant did not come forward to make good the payment. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal
The burden of proof lies with the one alleging forgery, and execution of a promissory note must be proven by comparing signatures to establish validity.
The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery, and the validity of a promissory note can be established through signature comparison.
The burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff to establish the execution and validity of the promissory note, and the Court can compare signatures to determine authenticity.
The burden of proof shifts to the defendant when the court finds that the disputed signatures match the admitted signature. Failure to examine a key witness may not be fatal to the plaintiff's case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving due execution of a promissory note and the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment ....
Point of law: Recovery of amount - Suit promissory note had been fabricated and the litigation launched on that basis - Probable reason as to why the case itself has been foisted
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.