Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,13,520/- based on a demand promissory note executed by the defendant-appellant on 03.04.2009 for a hand loan of Rs. 66,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to repay the amount despite repeated requests. The defendant denied the execution of the promissory note and contended that the suit was false. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the promissory note. The Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's judgment and decreed the suit, relying on the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and finding that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption. The defendant filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court framed a substantial question of law as to whether the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's judgment. The High Court held that the Appellate Court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The High Court noted that the defendant did not examine any witness to rebut the presumption and that the Appellate Court had correctly applied the law. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree of the Appellate Court.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Promissory Note - Presumption of Consideration - Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery based on a promissory note executed by the defendant. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Appellate Court reversed and decreed the suit. The High Court held that once execution of the promissory note is proved, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises, and the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the presumption. The defendant failed to discharge this burden. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Regular Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding the Appellate Court's reversal of the Trial Court's findings. The High Court held that the Appellate Court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's judgment and decree and decreeing the suit for recovery based on a promissory note, particularly in light of the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court dated 08.10.2015 in R.A.No.74/2014, which decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 66,000/- with interest.
Law Points
- Presumption of consideration under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Burden of proof on defendant to rebut presumption
- Appellate court's power to reverse findings of fact if perverse or based on no evidence
