The court ruled that when a cheque is issued for a loan, the burden of proof lies with the defendant to refute its issuance, and failure to provide sufficient evidence results in liability for the amount stated in the cheque.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2. First defendant is the appellant challenging the judgement of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.31/2008 whereby suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed reversing the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.103/2014.

3. The facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A suit for recovery of money in a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs came to be filed by the plaintiff with interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization by contending that the defendant has borrowed money in a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs in the month of October 2013 to meet the legal necessity of his family. He had promised to repay the same within two months. When plaintiff demanded the money, defendant said to have issued the cheque bearing No.138004 dated 01.01.2014 drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Hosadurga branch.

4. Said cheque was presented in the Bank of the plaintiff in Sree Seetha Raghava Souharda Sahakari Bank, Hosadurga. Said cheque on presentation, came to be dishonoured with an Endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Plaintiff issued the legal notice calling upon the defendant to make good the amount on 08.01.2014. However, the defendant did not claim the registered article and therefore plaintiff has constraint to file the suit.

5. There was also proceedings before the Criminal Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act .

6. In the suit, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto and contended that plaintiff has somehow able to collect the Cheque from the defendant and forged the signature of the defendant in the Cheque and therefore suit is to be dismissed.

7. Learned Trial Judge after framing necessary issues recorded evidence of the parties and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.31/2018.

9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and allowed the appeal inter alia holding in paragraphs No.17 to 21 as under :

"17. The defendant to substantiate his defence got examined himself as DW.1. He has reiterated the contents of the written statement averments in his examination-in-chief. The issuance of cheque and borrowing of hand loan specially disputed by defendant. Under such circumstances, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove his case beyond preponderance of probabilities. It is not disputed that plaintiff and defendants are relatives. It is also not disputed the plaintiff frequently visiting the house of defendant. It is the defence of the defendant is that the plaintiff thefted the cheque and filed false suit. The said allegation is specially denied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff specially deposed that the defendant borrowed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- during the month of October, 2013 and agreed to pay the said amount within 2 months. But. the defendants fails to pay. When plaintiff demanded frequently at last the defendant issued Ex.P.1 cheque.

18. The It is to be noted that the defendants also disputed the signature on Ex.P.1 cheque. But the defendant admits Ex.P.1 cheque belongs to him. very transaction is denied by the defendant. It is to be noted that, the plaintiff in order to prove that the defendant had transaction with plaintiff and borrowed loan and issued disputed cheque got produced Ex.P.10 i.e..the deposition in CC.No.229/2014. It is to be noted that, CC.No.229/2014 is filed by the son of plaintiff against