Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.MARIA CLETE
Athiyappan – Appellant
Versus
Thiyagarajan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
1. This First Appeal, under Section 96 CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019 made in O.S. No.23 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Villupuram @ Kallakurichi, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest came to be decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to by their ranks as they stood before the courts below. The defendant in the suit is the appellant in this first appeal.
3. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant borrowed Rs.12,00,000/- as hand loan on 18.08.2017 and, towards repayment, issued a cheque bearing No.291834 dated 18.08.2017 drawn on ICICI Bank, Kallakurichi Branch, from Account No.088705001582 maintained by him; when the cheque was presented through ICICI Bank, Kallakurichi on 19.08.2017, it was returned unpaid on 21.08.2017 with the endorsement “funds not sufficient”, and alleging that the defendant thereafter sought to evade repayment by alienating his properties and leaving the local limits, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of the said amount with interest and costs.
4. The defendant,
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 is presumed valid under the Negotiable Instruments Act unless the defendant provides sufficient evidence to disprove consideration.
An admission of signature on a negotiable instrument creates a legal presumption of consideration, which must be rebutted effectively by the defendant.
The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of consideration for the cheque, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the legal presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted only by clear admissions; mere allegations do not suffice.
The presumption of a cheque being issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 N.I.A. and the significance of a security cheque in commercial transactions were central to the c....
The burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the issuance of the cheque in discharge of a legal debt, and the presumption can be rebutted by producing evidence to the contrary.
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
