Back
ARUN MONGA
Kulwant Singh Brar – Appellant
Versus
Jagjit Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the loan agreement (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments for and against loan execution (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. affirmation of lower court's ruling (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's reasoning on evidence and findings (Para 18) |
| 5. final order of dismissal (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
Arun Monga, J. (Oral)
For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals before learned trial Court.
2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, appellant/plaintiff in second appeal before this Court assailing learned trial Court judgment and decree dated 08.08.2011, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 20.07.2012 dismissing the Plaintiff/appellant's suit for recovery of Rs.2,48,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt executed in his favour by defendant on 20.11.1999.
3. Briefly stated, facts, as noticed by learned Courts, are as below:
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 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 pronote creates a presumption of borrowing and debt, and the burden of proof is on the party seeking to rebut this presumption.
The plaintiff failed to prove the validity of the promissory note, which was deemed forged, leading to the appeal's success.
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
