The presumption of consideration in negotiable instruments remains until disproven, placing the burden on the party claiming otherwise.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)

1. This petition is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli, in Small Cause No.06/2020, dated 03.04.2024.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.96,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. It is stated that the plaintiff and the defendants are well known to each other. The respondents approached the petitioner and jointly borrowed a loan of Rs.80,000/- on 22.07.2018 for domestic expenses and jointly executed a promissory note for the said sum of Rs.80,000/- on 22.07.2018, agreeing to pay interest at 12% per annum. In spite of repeated demands and the issuance of a legal notice on 13.01.2020, the respondents did not settle the claim. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. Respondent has appeared before the trial court and filed written statement in which they have stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were working in a hotel called Shivashankaraiah Veerashaiva Khanavali at H.B. Halli. The proprietor of the said Khanavali is one Shivashankaraiah. The respondent No.1 is the brother-in-law of said Shivashankaraiah whereas the respondent No.2 is fostered by Shivashankraiah.

5. The respondents were working in the said Khanavali. The proprietor of said hotel Shivashankraiah had advised them to sale their earnings without misusing the same. As such, the said Shiveshanakraiah opened a Pigmy account in the name of respondent No.2 with primary agricultural credit Co-Operative Ltd, H.B.Halli. One Unki Neelakantappa S/o Unki Siddappa being the Pigmy agent of said bank used to collect pigmy on behalf of the said bank in the name of respondent No.2 who is having a pigmy account in the said bank bearing account No.5061 and the same was running from 07.10.2014. The Pigmy amount was regularly collecting by the said Unki Neelakantappa.

6. It is further contended that, the owner of the respondents Shivashankraiah was depositing the Pigmy amount regularly. After a while the respondents got married and their marriage was performed by Shivashankraiah. After their marriage they left the hotel and also stopped Pigmy payment to the Pigmy account.

7. It is further contended that, since the respondents were in need of money for their family necessities, they have approached the Pigmy agent Unki Neelakantappa and requested to disburse the amount which was collected in their pigmy account. But, the said Pigmy agent Unki Neelakantappa exploited the respondents by looking after their poor condition and he said that, the pigmy amount was paid by Shivashankraiah and not by the respondents. Hence, the respondents cannot claim the amount collected in the Pigmy account. The respondents have requested the pigmy agent to disburse the amount. By looking after the poor condition of the respondents the pigmy agent has asked them to put their signatures on several forms including the bond in the form of Promissory note for disbursal of pigmy amount. He advised the respondents that if they will be putting their signatures on papers it will be helpful for him to answer Shivashankaraiah if he would be claiming the Pigmy amount in future. By believing the words of pigmy agent the respondents have put their signatures to the several blank Papers. After that, the pigmy agent paid Rs.70,000/- as over draft on the pigmy amount collected in the pigmy amount. After certain time the pigmy agent demanded the respondents to clear the dues. As such, on 26.12.2018, on 02.02.2019 and on 04