Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20536
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.115/2021 (MON)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MUDDEGOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S.
SMT. UMA M.T., W/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT DWC 32/A, HUTHA COLONY, BHADRAVATHI-577 245. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. BHIME GOWDA, S/O THIRUMALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT ANTHARAGANGE VILLAGE AND POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 245. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R.HEREMATHAD, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.03.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.73/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.07.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.113/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI.
THIS R.S.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.07.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
The presumption of validity under the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply when there are significant discrepancies in the evidence surrounding the execution of the promissory note.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 118 and 139 - Second appeal against a reversal of trial court judgment regarding execution of a promissory note - The first appellate court erroneously invoked presumptions pertaining to the negotiable instrument without adequately addressing documentary evidence and witness credibility. (Paras 11, 30-32)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed the defendant borrowed Rs.90,000/- and executed an On Demand Promissory Note, which the defendant disputed, alleging the plaintiff was a stranger and that the document was obtained through collusion. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, noting inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony and the age of the promissory note, while the appellate court reversed this decision, improperly interpreting the evidentiary standards concerning the document. (Paras 6, 30)
Issues: The central issues included the execution and consideration of the alleged promissory note and the appropriateness of invoking specific presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Paras 11, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's analysis of the document and the necessary corroboration of witness testimony was paramount, and the appellate court erred by not addressing these substantive discrepancies, thus failing to establish the plaintiff's claim of liability. (Paras 30-31)
Result: Appeal allowed, trial court judgment restored.
CAV JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent did not choose to argue the matter and hence taken as nil.
2. This second appeal is filed against the divergent finding. At the first instance, the Trial Court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.113/2011 and the same is reversed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.73/2018.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff/respondent before the Trial Court is that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.90,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.07.2010 and agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum on demand or to his order and executed an On Demand Promissory Note with Consideration Receipt in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. Inspite of the demand made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the amount. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant died and hence the wife of the defendant was brought on record. In view of non payment of the amount, the suit is filed.
4. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that the plaintiff was stranger to him. He denied the borrowal of sum of Rs.90,000/- and execution of On Demand Promissory Note with Consideration Receipt. It is his contention that the plaintiff has filled the contents in the suit document in collusion with persons who are inimical to him. The plaintiff is a stranger to him and he has never entered into any transaction with the plaintiff. It is the specific contention of the defendant that one Smt. Shanthamma, wife of Sri K.N.Boregowda @ Bettegowda, had been running chit business in the year 1996 and she had obtained one blank signed On Demand Promissory Note with Consideration Receipt and also one blank signed Rs.10/- bond stamp paper from the defendant and his wife Smt. Uma M.T. as witness. She had also filed a suit in O.S.No.472/1999 against the defendant and Smt. Uma M.T. on the basis of the said Rs.10/- blank signed stamp paper and sought specific performance of contract in respect of the defendant’s property. The said Smt. Uma M.T. had seriously contested the said suit and later she had not pressed the suit in 2010. The said suit was filed with an intention to make wrongful gain and hence prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has executed a DP Note with consideration receipt on 12.07.2010 for Rs.90,000/- as alleged?
2. Whether the defendant proves that the said DP Note is not supported with any consideration?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?
4. What order or decree?
6. The plaintiff in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 and 2. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and examined two witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 14. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, taken note of that no notice was issued before filing the suit and also not produced any such notice before the Court. The Trial Court also taken note of that P.W.1 has admitted that Ex.P.1 is the old pronote, but again says that it is one year old. The Trial Court also taken note that at the time of advancing the loan, one Jayamma was present and she has introduced the defendant, but she was not examined and for the first time in the cross-examination, he has stated the purpose for which the money was lent. P.W.1 also states that there are corrections in Ex.P.1 and also he has admitted that the pronotes of 1990 would be ended in 2000 and the pronotes of the year 2000, the year he shown as 2000. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the very defendant himself had signed the signature of his wife and hence comes to the conclusion that if the transaction was real and genuine, the plaintiff could have objected there itself when t
