Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NIDHI GUPTA
Jagtar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Nachhattar Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
1. Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the ld. District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- has been decreed by both the District Courts.
2. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that on 15.09.2000, defendant/appellant had borrowed an amount of Rs1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Promissory Note and Receipt in his favour in the presence of marginal witnesses. Defendant had also agreed to pay interest @ 2% p.m. on the loan amount. Despite various requests, defendant had failed to repay the loan amount. Consequentially, plaintiff had filed instant civil suit on 05.03.2003.
3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla had decreed suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2010, as follows:
“23. As a consequence of my findings on above issues, present suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is decreed for recovery of Rs.1,50,00/- (One lac and fifty thousands) along with interest there-above @ 12% per annum from the date of advance i.e. 15.9.2000 ti
The courts affirmed the validity of a promissory note based on direct evidence, emphasizing that expert testimony is weak and should not override substantive evidence.
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 appellate court improperly reversed a trial decision regarding the authenticity of signatures on a pronote without addressing the trial court's valid evidence comparison under Section 73 of the I....
The court emphasized that ocular evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses, can outweigh the opinion of a handwriting expert. The court held that the plaintiff's evidence, including the validity o....
The burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff to establish the execution and validity of the promissory note, and the Court can compare signatures to determine authenticity.
The plaintiff failed to prove the validity of the promissory note, which was deemed forged, leading to the appeal's success.
The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof regarding the authenticity of a promissory note lies with the party alleging forgery, and the evidence must be evaluated on the preponderance of probabil....
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
