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 evidence.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Ritu Tagore, J.

The appellant - defendant is assailing the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 4,80,800/- (Rs. 2,80,000/- principal amount and Rs. 2,00,800 /- as interest) based on pronote as well as receipt dated 20.03.2012, has been decreed, and the first appeal preferred by the appellant, has been dismissed.

2. For sake of convenience, parties to the lis hereinafter, shall be referred to by their original status in the suit.

3. The plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery with the averments that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- from him on 20.03.2012, regarding which defendant executed a pronote and receipt of even date and agreed to pay interest @ 24% per annum. After reading and understanding the contents of pronote and receipt, defendant signed and thumb marked them in token of its correctness and acceptance. It is pleaded that despite repeated verbal requests and service of legal notice dated 18.02.2015, defendant failed to repay the amount that necessitated him to file suit against defendant.

4. On put to notice, defendant appeared and filed his written statement denying borrowing any sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.03.2012 and execution of any pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff on payment of any interest thereon. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff taking advantage of his acquaintance might have obtained his signatures on some papers and converted them into pronote and receipt, which are not binding upon him. He did not obtain any money under any pronote or receipt. The defendant further pleaded that he gave an appropriate reply to the legal notice given by the plaintiff. By denying the averments of the plaintiff, the defendant pleaded that suit of the plaintiff is based on false facts and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. Since the parties were at variance, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether defendant executed pronote and receipt in favour of plaintiff on 20.03.2012 and borrowed Rs. 2,80,000/-? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 4,80,800/- (Rs. 2,80,000/- principal amount and Rs. 2,00,800/- as interest) along with future interest from defendant as alleged in the plaint? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

5. Relief.

6. In order to prove due execution of pronote and receipt, plaintiff appeared as PW-2 and substantiated the facts of plaint in entirety. He testified that defendant borrowed Rs. 2,80,000/- from him on 20.03.2012, regarding which defendant executed a pronote (Ex.PW1/G) and receipt (Ex.PW1/H) and also agreed to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the borrowed amount. He further deposed that after reading and understanding the contents of pronote and receipt, defendant signed and thumb marked them in token of its correctness and acceptance. He further testified that despite repeated verbal requests and service of legal notice dated 18.02.2015 (Ex P-3), defendant failed to repay the amount on demand, that constrained him to file suit against defendant. In support of his version, plaintiff examined Jaivir Singh, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert (PW1), who testified that disputed handwriting and signature of the defendant appearing on pronote (Ex.PW1/G) and receipt (Ex.PW1/H) tallies with the admitted signatures and handwriting of the defendant. Smt. Minakshi Yadav Advocate (PW3) proved the legal notice Ex P3 and postal receipt Ex.P4, stating that she had sent the notice through registered post. On the contrary, defendant did not lead any evidence, rather after putting an appearance, chose to default thereafter and was proceeded against ex-parte.

7. Learned lower Court, on appraisal of evidence returned the findings on issues No.1 to 2 in favour of the plaintiff, holding defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and duly executed pron