Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
K. Sundararaj – Appellant
Versus
K. Periyasamy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
The present Second Appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment dated 09.02.2022 passed in A.S. No.90 of 2018, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur at Dharapuram, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 06.12.2006 passed in O.S. No.117 of 2002, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram.
2. The respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of money. The unsuccessful defendant has preferred the present Second Appeal.
3. According to the respondent / plaintiff, the appellant / defendant borrowed a sum of Rs,2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his urgent family needs and for business expenses, executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum on demand. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the borrowed amount with interest and was trying to dispose his properties. Hence the suit.
4. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant stating that on 31.07.1995, he borrowed a sum of Rs.90,000/- from one Muthusamy and executed an agreement for Rs.1,00,000/- and also handed o
The execution of a promissory note creates a presumption of consideration, which the defendant must rebut with credible evidence to avoid liability.
The court confirmed that once a plaintiff establishes the execution of a promissory note, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove its validity; failure to do so upholds the note's legal presum....
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the defendant can discharge the burden of proof by demonstrating the improbability of considera....
The court found the plaintiff failed to establish the execution of the promissory note, concluding the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be in....
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.
The burden of proof to disprove the existence of consideration for a negotiable instrument lies with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of presumption under Section 118 of th....
The admission of execution of a promissory note shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that no consideration was 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
