When a defendant denies the execution of a cheque and contests the underlying loan transaction, the initial burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to establish the version of events; without proving such execution, the plaintiff cannot claim the benefit of presumptions regarding negotiable instruments.

RFA NO. 251 OF 2010

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.09.2009 IN OS NO.130 OF 2007 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, MANJERI

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.05.2026, THE COURT ON 02.06.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

R.F.A. No.251 of 2010

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2026

JUDGMENT

The defeated plaintiff in a suit for realisation of money is the appellant.

2. O.S.No. 130/2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri, was filed by the appellant/plaintiff contending that on 22.10.2007, the defendant/respondent herein, borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by entrusting a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- dated 28.10.2007. The plaintiff presented the cheque on 07.11.2007, which was returned on account of insufficient funds. Contending that the defendant was attempting to transfer his property, the suit was filed on 07.11.2007, the same day on which the cheque bounced, claiming an amount of Rs.2,01,002/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum against the defendant and his assets.

3. The defendant contended that he was not a neighbour of the plaintiff, who was staying at Nilambur, which is 23 kilometres away from

the residence of the defendant. The entire transaction, as alleged in the plaint, was denied. The defendant contended that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff and that, at the time, three signed cheque leaves were issued by the defendant as security for the said transaction. Though the amount borrowed was repaid, the cheques were not returned as the plaintiff raised a dispute regarding the rate of interest payable. Defendant alleges that after closing the said transaction on 05.07.2006, he had gone abroad and returned to Bombay on 09.05.2007 and continued to stay there. While residing there, he received information regarding a warrant issued against him by a criminal court on the basis of the complaint filed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, he came down and surrendered before the criminal court and was released on bail. It is further alleged that a blank signed cheque given for the closed transaction was fraudulently misused by the plaintiff.

4. The trial court considered the evidence of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 and A4 series on the side of the plaintiff, and the testimony of DW1 and Exts.B1 to B5 series and B7 on the side of the defendant. The trial court found that Ext.B6 series produced by the defendant showed that the cheque in dispute alone was seen written by a different person and that

all the other cheques were duly filled up by the defendant. He also produced evidence to show the residence of the plaintiff. The trial court also found that the plaintiff was an advocate and that Ext. A1 disputed cheque contained only the admitted signature of the defendant, and all other entries were not made by the defendant. The trial court also took note of the inconsistency in the case of the plaintiff, as the plaint alleged that on 22.10.2007 the defendant had gone to his residence and sought a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- and on that day the plaintiff lent Rs 2,00,000/- to the defendant.

5. Thus, the pleadings show that the demand was for Rs.4,00,000/-, but payment of Rs.2,00,000/- was made on the same day. However, in chief examination, the plaintiff deposed that, on 22.10.2007 the defendant went to him and sought for a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- and when the plaintiff expressed his inability to pay that amount, the defendant asked for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and accordingly on the same evening the defendant came with a duly filled up cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- and the payment was made. In cross-examination, the plaintiff, however, stated that on 21.10.2007 at 07.00 p.m., the defendant