Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Promissory Note Execution - The evidence consistently shows that the defendants signed the promissory notes, with witnesses such as P.W.2 and P.W.3 attesting to the passing of consideration and the execution of the promissory notes in their presence. The defendants have admitted their signatures, and the attestors have corroborated the transaction, establishing the execution of the promissory notes and passing of consideration ["2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1369"] ["2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 1355"] ["2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1362"] ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2343"] ["2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1851"] ["2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1412"] ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 348"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74178"] ["2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 1495"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 74148"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 64513"] ["
PUTHAN KANGANY v. PERUMAL
"].Burden of Proof and Rebuttal - Once the plaintiff proves execution and consideration through oral and documentary evidence, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove these facts. The defendant's failure to produce credible evidence or to lead any independent proof to challenge the execution or consideration weakens their case. The courts have consistently held that the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted only if the defendant adduces sufficient evidence, which they often fail to do ["2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 1355"] ["2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1362"] ["2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1851"] ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 348"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74178"].
Evidence of Attestors and Signatures - The attestors' testimonies, signatures comparison, and the non-examination of attestors in some cases have been critical. Courts have relied on the oral testimony of witnesses like P.W.2 and P.W.3, and on signature comparisons, to establish the authenticity of the promissory note. The absence of evidence from attestors or failure to challenge signatures appropriately has been viewed as supporting the validity of the promissory note ["2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1369"] ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2343"] ["2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1851"] ["2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1362"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 74148"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 64513"] ["
PUTHAN KANGANY v. PERUMAL
"].Validity and Stamp Duty - Several cases highlight that the promissory note must be properly stamped to be admissible. Documents not duly stamped or improperly stamped are inadmissible as evidence. However, once admitted, objections based on stamp duty are generally considered late if not raised during trial ["
PUTHAN KANGANY v. PERUMAL
"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 37966"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 74148"].Forgery and Fabrication Claims - The defendants have sometimes claimed that the promissory notes were forged or signed in blank, but courts have found these assertions unsubstantiated when evidence such as witness testimonies and signatures support the note's authenticity. The failure to produce cogent evidence of forgery or fabrication shifts the burden back to the defendant, who often fails to rebut the presumption of due execution ["2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1369"] ["2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1362"] ["2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1851"] ["2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1297"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72427"].
Court’s Appreciation of Evidence - Courts have emphasized the importance of properly appreciating oral and documentary evidence, especially witness testimonies regarding the execution and consideration of promissory notes. They have criticized instances where appellate courts have overlooked credible evidence or improperly assessed contradictions, reaffirming that consistent oral testimonies and signatures are sufficient to establish execution and consideration ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2343"] ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 348"] ["2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1369"] ["2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1362"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The consistent thread across these cases is that the execution of a promissory note, supported by witnesses' testimonies, signatures, and passing of consideration, is sufficient to prove its validity. The burden shifts to the defendant to disprove these facts, often unmet due to lack of credible evidence. Proper stamping and adherence to procedural requirements are also critical for admissibility. Courts have upheld the enforceability of promissory notes when these evidentiary standards are met, and claims of forgery or fabrication require substantive proof to succeed. Overall, the evidence favoring the plaintiff's case regarding promissory notes remains compelling when properly supported by witnesses and documents ["2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1369"] ["2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 1355"] ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2343"].
In the world of financial transactions, promissory notes serve as crucial documents promising repayment of loans. But what happens when disputes arise over their validity? The question of Promissory Evidence—proving execution, consideration, and authenticity—often determines the outcome of recovery suits. Courts apply well-established principles under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), emphasizing credible proof and rebuttable presumptions. This guide breaks down these legal nuances, drawing from key judgments to help you understand how courts handle such cases.
Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Promissory notes are negotiable instruments presumed to be supported by consideration once their execution is proved. The plaintiff typically bears the initial burden to establish that the note was duly executed, often through signatures, witnesses, or circumstantial evidence like party conduct. 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 318 1972 0 Supreme(AP) 191
Under Section 118 of the NI Act, a statutory presumption arises in favor of the plaintiff regarding consideration once execution is proven. As one judgment notes, The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once execution of the promissory note is established, placing the burden on the Defendant to rebut this presumption. 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1350
Key points include:- Execution Proof: Plaintiff must show the defendant's signature and attestation. Evidence like witness testimony and possession of the note is vital. 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 318 2025 0 Supreme(AP) 454- Shifting Burden: Post-execution proof, defendant must disprove validity on preponderance of probabilities. 1986 0 Supreme(AP) 508- Admissibility: Proper stamping and execution matter, but defects don't automatically invalidate if core elements are established. 1936 0 Supreme(Nagpur) 57
Courts consistently hold that the plaintiff must first prove execution. This involves direct evidence (e.g., defendant's signature identified by witnesses) or circumstantial evidence (e.g., conduct post-execution). In a recovery suit, the trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff after finding evidence of execution and consideration valid, upholding the presumption. 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1350
For instance, The consistency in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 regarding the execution of the promissory note by Defendants upon receiving the consideration amount is significant. Despite extensive cross-examination, no evidence has emerged to undermine their testimony. 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1350
Failure to meet this burden dooms the case. In another matter, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove passing of consideration and therefore could not claim to be a bonafide holder of the promissory note in due course. 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3073
Once execution is established, Section 118 presumes the note was for consideration. This shifts the onus to the defendant. Courts have consistently held that a promissory note, as a negotiable instrument, is presumed to be supported by consideration once its execution is proved. 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 318
The presumption is rebuttable via preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. Defendants can use circumstantial evidence, like claiming the note was signed blank or forged. However, mere denial isn't enough; tangible proof is required. 1986 0 Supreme(AP) 508 2025 0 Supreme(AP) 454
In a loan dispute, lower courts found consideration of Rs. 2,000 was passed to the defendant, is not at all proved, denying the presumption.
Shyamrao VS Champa Lal
Defendants often allege forgery, lack of consideration, or undue influence. Courts evaluate signatures, witness credibility, and party conduct. When the defendant claims the note was signed in blank or was fabricated, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove the genuineness and passing of consideration. 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 318 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 202
Signature comparison is permissible if admitted or not disputed. Even otherwise, as there is no dispute regarding the signature... reliance made for comparison of the said signatures... cannot be found fault with.
Chelladurai VS Velmurugan
Normal discrepancies in witness testimony don't discredit them unless glaring. Credibility of Witnesses - Normal discrepancies in witness testimonies do not invalidate their credibility unless they are so glaring as to destroy confidence in their accounts. 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1350
Circumstantial evidence can rebut: The presumption arising under this section can be rebutted even by circumstantial evidence.
Shyamrao VS Champa Lal
Proving promissory evidence relies on:- Signatures and Attestation: Identified by witnesses or compared judicially.
Chelladurai VS Velmurugan
- Witness Testimony: Consistent accounts of loan and execution withstand cross-examination. 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1350- Documentary Corroboration: Bank records, receipts, or conduct.Monjur Alam Mallick VS Rajib Saha
- Stamping: Unstamped notes may face admissibility challenges, but objections must be raised when tendered. Objection has to be raised at the time when document is tendered in evidence and not subsequently.Monjur Alam Mallick VS Rajib Saha
Once admitted without objection, contents are in evidence. Once a document is properly admitted contents of that document are also admitted in evidence though those contents may not be conclusive evidence.
Monjur Alam Mallick VS Rajib Saha
Forgery claims require defendant proof; plaintiff denial alone isn't sufficient without supporting evidence. 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3073
Limitations: Presumption doesn't arise if execution itself is unproved. No admission of execution of promissory note can be spelt out from the written statement of defendant—It was for plaintiff to prove its due execution.
Shyamrao VS Champa Lal
To strengthen cases:- Ensure proper stamping and witnesses at execution.- Plaintiffs: Gather bank proofs, consistent witnesses.- Defendants: Provide probable evidence beyond denial for rebuttal.- Examine signatures, conduct thoroughly.
Legal practitioners should prepare for Section 118 dynamics. 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 318
Monjur Alam Mallick VS Rajib Saha
Promissory evidence disputes hinge on robust proof. Understanding these principles can guide transactions and litigation effectively.
References include judgments like 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 318, 1972 0 Supreme(AP) 191, 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1350, 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3073, Monjur Alam Mallick VS Rajib Saha Chelladurai VS Velmurugan Shyamrao VS Champa Lal
The evidence of P.W.1 supports the case of the plaintiff. 14. In order to prove the suit promissory note, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.2, scribe of the suit promissory note. ... The borrowing of amount by the defendant is clearly narrated by P.W.2 in his evidence. The evidence of P.W.2 testifies about the passing of consideration under Ex.A-1 promissory note from Talasila Srinivasa Rao to the defendant under Ex.A-1 promissory note. .......
If, however, the plaintiff pleads in the plaint, that the promissory note is supported by a consideration, as recited in the promissory note and evidence is adduced in support thereof, the burden is on the defendants to disprove the same. ... The defendants have not come-forward to lead evidence, no objection was raised when the promissory note was exhibited. On the contrary not only the plaintiff but also two other attesting witnesses, who had witnessed execution of the promissory not....
As seen from the evidence of the defendant i.e., D.W.1, the defendant himself admitted his signature on the promissory note and he admits in his evidence that the signature on the promissory note belongs to him. ... To discharge his burden and passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 promissory note, the plaintiff examined the sole attestor in the promissory note as P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2 proves about passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 promissory#HL_EN....
The trial Judge ought to have appreciated the oral evidence before arriving at a conclusion about the validity and genuineness of the suit promissory note. ... So the Commissioner’s report or his oral evidence does not have anything to do with the opinion of the expert on the disputed signature on the suit promissory note. ... The law of evidence does not cast a duty upon the plaintiff that the signature of the promissory note should always be proved based on the expert’s opinion and n....
He may reflect the presumption through oral and documentary evidence and even through circumstantial evidence. The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in unison concluded that the promissory note is valid one and binding on the defendant. 19. ... It is the evidence of PW2 that on 05.12.2005, the defendant for his personal expenses obtained a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- in his presence from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note and the same was scribed by one Selvaraj. He along with one Man....
The consistency in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 regarding the execution of the promissory note by Defendants upon receiving the consideration amount is significant. Despite extensive cross-examination, no evidence has emerged to undermine their testimony. ... Notably, no evidence in the record indicates that the 1st Defendant took any legal action against the financers because they had provided blank promissory notes to the Plaintiff. ... Based on the evidence presented in this case, it....
Apart from Ex.A-5, the plaintiff has not produced any shred of evidence, except the oral ipse dixit evidence suggesting that he had sufficient funds to pay the original holder of the promissory note. ... On carefully perusing the oral and documentary evidence,it is seen that though the plaintiff has categorically denied her signature in Ex.A-1, promissory note, she has not led any evidence whatsoever in support of the said contention of forgery. ... Even in such a case, it is open to t....
The defendant has admitted his signature in the suit promissory note. His case before the trial Court was peculiar during evidence that he signed blank promissory note in connection with Chit transaction. ... Since the evidence of P.W.1 regarding execution of promissory note by defendant and passing of consideration is corroborated by P.W.2, the attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note, the trial Court found that the execution of suit promissory note and passing of considera....
The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is consistent regarding the execution of the promissory note by the defendants. ... PWs.2 and 3 attested the Ex.A.1 promissory note. PWs.1 to 3 testified that the defendants i.e., the husband and wife, executed the Ex.A.1 suit promissory note on receiving the consideration. As per PW.1's evidence, Ex.A.1 promissory note transaction was held at about 09.30 AM. ... The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 shows that they have consistently stated in their #H....
by leading satisfactory, oral and documentary evidence. ... The trial Court has rightly assessed the oral and documentary evidence, besides also chosen to compare the signature of the defendant in EX.A1 promissory note with the vakalat, evidence, signature of the defendant in the deposition and the written statement and found that the signatures were almost identical ... The trial Court, based on the evidence of the witness PW-2 and PW-3 and the primary evidence of the plaintiff and de....
We have gone through the relevant depositions where the promissory note was tendered in evidence. The said document was tendered during examination in chief of PW1.
Even otherwise, as there is no dispute regarding the signature of the appellant herein/defendant even in the written statement and vakalat and there is no contention that the signature could have been deliberately disguised, reliance made for comparison of the said signatures with the disputed signatures to find out whether Ex.A1 was genuine or not cannot be found fault with. The comparison made by the lower appellate court is only for confirmation of the finding arrived at based on other evidence. Both of them have also identified the signatures found therein and also the thumb impression f....
Apart from this, the presumption arising under this section can be rebutted even by circumstantial evidence. The evidence of plaintiff has not been relied by the two Courts below. In the present case, both the parties have adduced evidence in regard to the execution of the promissory note. While appreciating the evidence, learned two Courts below also arrived at a pure finding of fact that consideration of Rs. 2,000 was passed to the defendant, is not at all proved, therefore, I am of the view that there cannot be any presumption under Section 118 of the Act in the facts....
The evidence of plaintiff has not been relied by the two Courts below. In the present case, both the parties have adduced evidence in regard to the execution of the promissory note. While appreciating the evidence, learned two Courts below also arrived at a pure finding of fact that consideration of Rs.2,000/- was passed to the defendant, is not at all proved, therefore, I am of the view that there cannot be any presumption under Section 118 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Apart from this, the presumption arising under this section can be rebu....
The evidence of plaintiff has not been relied by the two Courts below. While appreciating the evidence, learned two Courts below also arrived at a pure finding of fact that consideration of Rs. 2,000/- was passed to the defendant, is not at all proved, therefore, I am of the view that there cannot be any presumption under Section 118 of the act in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Apart from this, the presumption arising under this section can be rebutted even by circumstantial evidence. In the present case, both the parties have adduced evidence in regard to the exe....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.