Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Nagaraj – Appellant
Versus
Mayilsamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claimed recovery based on a pronote. (Para 4) |
| 2. court highlighted insufficient evidence and expert testimony diminishing plaintiff's claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. court's reasoning focused on the burden of proof in civil proceedings. (Para 7) |
| 4. defendant challenged the validity and execution of the promissory note. (Para 8 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
1. This first appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024 made in O.S.No.154 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Court, Dindigul. It is a suit for recovery of money.
2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-
The defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to meet his urgent expenses on 26.01.2015. He executed Ex.A1-pro note in the presence of the witnesses. He had agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Since he did not pay either the principal amount or the interest in spite of the repeated demands, the suit for recovery came to be filed.
3. The defendant filed written statement denying the whole transaction. He contended that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. He also denied the execution of the suit pro note. The defendan
Court deemed the execution of the pronote unproven due to insufficient evidence by the plaintiff and reliance on expert evidence favoring the defendant.
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.
Non-examination of witness to pro-note cannot be held against plaintiff when there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by two Courts on execution of pro-note by defendant in favour of plaintiff....
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the execution of the promissory note and passing of consideration, and the credibility of witnesses and consistency of evidence are crucial in....
Execution of a promissory note raises a presumption of consideration; failure to rebut this presumption results in liability for the debt.
The presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies unless rebutted, and the burden of proving fraud lies with the defendant, who failed to provide evidenc....
The execution of a promissory note must be proven for the legal presumption of consideration to apply; failure to establish execution results in dismissal of the claim.
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
