The presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted only by clear admissions; mere allegations do not suffice.

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the defendant in a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note which is a cheque, drawn for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- given on 26.06.2016. According to the plaintiff, there were several business transactions between the defendant and the plaintiff and the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the amount within 3 months. As security for the sum borrowed, a cheque which was drawn on the Ernakulam District Co- operative Bank, Marine Drive Branch was given by the defendant. The cheque was presented by the plaintiff for encashment and the same was returned on 03.10.2016 with endorsement ‘account was closed’. The plaintiff issued a lawyers notice calling upon the defendant to repay the amount and it was accepted by the defendant and issued a reply notice dated 28.10.2016. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that, from 2000 onwards, the plaintiff and the defendant are involved in real estate business on a partnership basis and in order to meet the financial urgency, the defendant had handed over a signed blank cheque to the plaintiff during 2007-08.

2. With these material evidence, when the parties went to trial, the defendant was extensively cross-examined, who in turn admitted that it was he who had written the name, amount in words and figures and signature in the cheque. Therefore, the Trial Court found that the defendant did not hand over the blank cheque as contended. The plea of the defendant that the cheque was handed over as security was thus not accepted. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred appeal as A.S. No. 15 of 2023 before the Sub Court, Kochi, and it was dismissed by judgment dated 29.07.2025 and hence, the appeal. 3. Heard Sri. O. P. Nandakumar, the learned Counsel for the appellant.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the cheque was given in the year 2008 and that the account was closed in the year 2010. The cheque was given as security for various businesses transactions which were happening between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff had admitted that it was he who inserted the date in the negotiable instrument and, therefore, the presumption available under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands rebutted at the hands of the appellant.

5. On considering the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that the findings rendered concurrently by the Courts below does not to be perverse inasmuch as the defendant had admitted that it is he who had inserted the figures and the signature in the cheque. The contention as regards an inter se arrangement between the parties does not impress this Court because if, as a matter of fact, there was any dispute between the appellant and the plaintiff, necessarily, the appellant ought to have demanded back the cheque at any time before closing the account. In not doing so, there is a clear intention on the part of the appellant not to honour the negotiable instrument.

Viewed in the above perspective, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the findings rendered by the Courts below. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to admit the appeal and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-