Back
G. RADHA RANI
Kanuganti Ramu – Appellant
Versus
Samala Venu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dr. G. Radha Rani, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - defendant No.1 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.140 of 2012 dated 19.11.2018 by the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
2. The respondent is the plaintiff.
3. The parties are hereinafter referred as plaintiff and defendant No.1 before the trial court.
4. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.60,50,000/- submitting that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had acquaintance. They were known to each other for a long time and out of the said acquaintance, the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff and requested to advance a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs to meet his compelling business requirements and promised that he would repay the said sum within a short period. Accordingly, the plaintiff considered his request and advanced the said sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs to the defendant No.1 on 14.08.2006. The said amount was paid by the plaintiff through cash. While receiving the said sum, the defendant No.1 executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the said sum with interest @ 2 % per month. The above transaction was witnessed by two witnesses namely (1) Sri
The presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies when the execution of a promissory note is admitted, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove non-....
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Act is a statutory presumption and unless it is rebutted, it has to be presumed that consideration has passed.
Execution of a promissory note raises a presumption of consideration; failure to rebut this presumption results in liability for the debt.
The court affirmed the validity of a promissory note and clarified the burden of proof regarding consideration, modifying the interest awarded.
The plaintiff's failure to disprove the defense taken by the defendant and the finding of the suit promissory note as not true and valid influenced the court's decision.
Presumption of validity under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains unrefuted by the defendant, affirming enforceability of promissory note despite claims of fabrication.
The burden of proof to disprove the existence of consideration for a negotiable instrument lies with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of presumption under Section 118 of th....
The presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises when execution of a promissory note is established, placing the burden on the defendant to disprove the transaction.
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....
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
