Back
Allahbad High Court
S.S.DHAVAN
Satya Narain - Appellant
Versus
Nanki Devi - Respondent
Decided On : 10/03/1966
PROMISSORY NOTE - EXECUTION - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 111 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - RELATIONSHIP OF ACTIVE CONFIDENCE - ADMISSION OF EXECUTION - NON EST FACTUM - INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED INSTRUMENT - ADMISSIBILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sued the defendant on a promissory note for Rs. 6,529/4/6 with interest at the rate of eight annas per cent per month. The defendant denied execution of the note and alleged that the plaintiff had filed a false claim at the instigation of the co-widow of her husband. She further alleged that the plaintiff was in a position of confidence and dominated her will, and that he got her to sign the note without understanding its implications.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the promissory note was not executed for consideration and that the plaintiff had failed to prove either the execution of the note or its consideration. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff stood in a position of active confidence to the defendant and, therefore, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction was on him.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff stood in a position of active confidence to the defendant as contemplated under Section 111 of the Evidence Act? 2. Whether the promissory note was duly executed? 3. Whether the promissory note was insufficiently stamped and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff did not stand in a position of active confidence to the defendant as contemplated under Section 111 of the Evidence Act. The court found that the defendant was not a pardanashin woman, that she had managed her own affairs after her husband's death, and that she had taken loans from various persons without the help of the plaintiff. 2. The court held that the defendant had admitted her signatures on the promissory note in her written statement. The court found that the defendant's plea of non est factum was not supported by the evidence. 3. The court held that the promissory note was insufficiently stamped, but that the defendant could not raise the question of its admissibility at this stage because it had been admitted in evidence by the trial court without objection.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the court below, and remanded the case to the lower appellate court for a re-hearing of the appeal on merits.
2. The respondent resisted the suit and denied all liability. She denied that she had executed any promissory note to borrow any money at any time from the appellant, and alleged that the latter had filed a false claim at the instigation of the co-widow of her husband. She further alleged that after the death of her husband the appellant was looking after her affairs till 1956 and during this period he was getting money from the respondent under various pretexts and in this manner squandered various amounts by misrepresentation. She contended that during their dealings the appellant was occupying a position of confidence and was also in a position to dominate her will.
She alleged that he was getting various papers signed by her under the pretext that they were required in connection with the litigation in the Fatehpur Court and further alleged (to quote her own words),
"it appears that he got the signature on a blank printed form of pronote and later on got a pronote prepared on the same."
She also alleged that the plaintiff was in a position to dominate her will and she was a widow of immature understanding and not conversant with preparation of documents, and if the plaintiff abused his position and made her sign the document without getting it filled up and completed and without making her understand the implications, then the contract. if any, was voidable at the instance of the respondent on the ground that it had been induced by misrepresentation and undue influence.
3. Both sides led evidence, oral and documentary. The plaintiff gave evidence himself and produced his son Shri Narain and three other witnesses to prove the advancing of moneys to the defendant from time to time and also examined the scribe and the witnesses of the promissory note. These witnessess testified that the note had been signed by the respondent in their presence. The defendant also gave evidence and testified that she never needed any money from the appellant nor asked him for any loan. She deposed that whenever she-needed any money she borrowed it from other persons but never from the appellant She examined Ayodhya Prasad who deposed that he advanced a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to her and also produced Mathura Prasad who deposed that he had sold the Kanpur house to her and that he had repaired the house before selling it. She also produced certain documents with the object of showing that the appellant had acted as her pairokar in the Fatehpur suit and in another proceeding at Kanpur. She also prod
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
