An admission of signature on a negotiable instrument creates a legal presumption of consideration, which must be rebutted effectively by the defendant.

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money is the appellant in the present Appeal Suit.

2.Pleadings:

The plaint in brief:

(a) The plaintiff and the defendant are known to each other for two decades. The plaintiff is a civil contractor doing Government and private works, earning Rs.5 lakhs per annum, besides owning landed properties, from which additional income of Rs.3 lakhs per annum accrues. The defendant is doing business in coconut, mango and tamarind and also possesses lorries and a tractor, through which he does transport business in the same village. The plaintiff was approached by the defendant on 15-07-2019, for a hand loan of Rs.23 lakhs, for improving his business and also to discharge family debts. In view of the close acquaintance, the plaintiff lent a sum of Rs.23 lakhs by cash on 30-07-2019. The defendant agreed to repay the same within 30 days and had issued a post-dated cheque, bearing No.003306 dated 30-08-2019. After the expiry of 30 days, the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested for repayment and since the defendant requested the plaintiff to present the cheque after 2 weeks for collection, the plaintiff waited for 2 weeks and presented the cheque. However, the cheque was returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 17-09-2019, on being presented on 16-09-2019.

(b) The plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice on 21-09-2019. The defendant on receipt of the said notice, sent a reply on 27-09-2019, denying the claims of the plaintiff and also contending that the plaintiff's uncle, one Ramakrishnan and the defendant had been doing joint business, by taking lease of mango grove from third parties and they had invested a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs, by sharing the same equally, that is Rs.37,50,000/- each. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff's uncle, Ramakrishnan paid his share of Rs.37,50,000/- in the bank account of the owners of the mango grove and the defendant paid his share of Rs.37,50,000/- in cash.

(c) It was further contended that the business suffered losses and taking advantage of the defendant being illiterate, the plaintiff's uncle, who was maintaining the defendant's account also stole the cheques of the defendant, without his knowledge and threatened the defendant through henchmen. The defendant had also lodged a police complaint, however the defendant was directed to seek a relief through Court. Though a panchayat was convened and both the plaintiff's uncle, Ramakrishnan and the defendant were directed to compensate the loss in business equally and the said Ramakrishnan was also advised to return the cheques stolen from the defendant, the said Ramakrishnan without handing over the cheques to the defendant has mischievously filled the same in the name of the plaintiff and has made the claim for recovery of money. In view of the false stand taken by the defendant, the plaintiff has been constrained to institute the suit for recovery of money. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant has borrowed heavily from several creditors and with an intention to defraud all creditors, including the plaintiff, the defendant is attempting to sell the properties belonging to him. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 23,62,866/- together with interest of 12% per annum on Rs.23 lakhs and for costs.

3.The written statement in brief:

(a) The defendant denies that the plaintiff and the defendant are friends for two decades. The defendant denies self-serving claims of the plaintiff doing contract work for the Government as well as privately and that he earns an income of Rs.8 lakhs per annum. The defendant denies that the plaintiff own