Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 42713
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
WILSON – Respondent
RFA NO. 259 OF 2012 | OS NO.268 OF 2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.JEENA JOSEPH, SRI.G.D.PANICKER
For the Respondents: SRI.V.SURESH, SRI.G.SUDHEER
A plaintiff must prove the execution of a promissory note and the legitimacy of financial transactions, which was insufficiently established in this case.
Headnote:(A) Contract Act, 1872 - Promissory Note - Suit based on promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/- - Plaintiff failed to prove execution of promissory note or the source of loan - Evidence of witnesses contradictory - Defendant’s application for expert examination of signatures dismissed - Court found reliance on unsubstantiated evidence insufficient to decree suit. (Paras 2, 3, 14)
(B) Burden of Proof - Plaintiff failed to establish claim or provide evidence of financial legitimacy - Evidence weak and contradictory among witnesses; trial court's reliance on unverified documents criticized. (Paras 8, 14)
Facts of the case:
The suit was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a loan based on a demand promissory note, which the defendant denied executing. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, leading to this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found no reliable evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of loan execution or the legitimacy of financial dealings. The appeal was allowed due to lack of substantiation of claims by the plaintiff.
Issues: Key issues included the execution of the promissory note and entitlement of the plaintiff to the claimed amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish the legitimacy of the loan and the execution of the promissory note, leading to the decision to set aside the lower court's decree.
Result: Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff filed suit based on a promissory note. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. evidence presented by plaintiff contradicted and lacked support. (Para 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court found insufficient evidence to substantiate plaintiff's claims. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
Dated : 22nd September, 2025 The defendant in O.S. No. 268 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court).
2. The plaintiff filed this suit for realization of money on the basis of a demand promissory note. According to the plaintiff, on 30.12.2005, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from him, promising to repay the same on demand, and after executing a demand promissory note. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the amount and hence the suit.
3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the transaction with the plaintiff as well as denying the execution of any demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff as alleged. The trial court framed two issues. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 3, Exhibits A1 and A2, on the side of the plaintiff, and the oral testimony of DW 1 and Exhibit B1, on the side of the defendant. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant preferred this appeal, raising various grounds.
4. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following
1) Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff after executing Exhibit A1 promissory note as alleged?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for the plaint amount as prayed for ?
5. Heard Smt. Jeena Joseph, the learned counsel for the appellant. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that there is no instruction from the party.
6. The points: According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant has denied the execution of Exhibit A1 and in spite of the fact that the signature of the appellant appearing in Exhibit B1 is different from that in Exhibit A1, the trial court relied upon the case put forward by the plaintiff. Further, according to the learned counsel, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 are contradictory to each other on several aspects. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
7. The plaintiff as PW1 deposed that on 30.12.2005, the defendant came to his residence, borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- and executed Exhibit A1 promissory note promising to repay the amount on demand. According to him, Exhibit A1 promissory note was brought by the defendant already prepared and he subscribed his signature in Exhibit A1 in his presence at his residence. He also deposed that PWs 2 and 3, the two witnesses to Exhibit A1 also affixed their signature in Exhibit A1. Pws 2 and 3 are two witnesses to Exhibit A1. They also deposed that they saw the defendant affixing his signature in Exhibit A1 after receiving a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. They also admitted their signature in Exhibit A1 promissory note.
8. However, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, there are several circumstances creating suspicion in the veracity of the case set up by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, during the relevant period, he was doing financial business with a valid registration. However, he has not produced any registration certificate for conducting financial business, as claimed. According to him, he had paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the defendant in cash. However, he has not produced any documents to prove the source of the income used for advancing the loan to the defendant. During the cross examination, the plaintiff as PW1 conceded that he was not paying any income tax during the relevant period. As argued by the learned counsel
