Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a suit for recovery of money filed by the plaintiff, a money lender, against the defendants based on a promissory note dated 05.01.2016 for Rs.10 lakhs. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants borrowed the amount and executed the promissory note, and later the first defendant issued a cheque which was dishonored. The first defendant denied the loan and claimed the promissory note was forged, stating he had only borrowed Rs.1,60,000 in April 2014. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found discrepancies in the plaintiff's case, including the failure to produce the original voucher, inconsistencies in the ledger, and the cheque not being in the plaintiff's name. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the promissory note and the passing of consideration, and thus the appeal was allowed, setting aside the trial court's decree and dismissing the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeal against decree - Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Section 96 CPC - The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.35 of 2016, dated 19.07.2019, passed by the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, decreeing the suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note. (Paras 1-3) B) Negotiable Instruments - Promissory Note - Execution and Consideration - Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The plaintiff must prove the execution of the promissory note and the passing of consideration. The presumption under Section 118 can be rebutted by the defendant. In this case, the plaintiff's evidence was discrepant and failed to prove the loan transaction. (Paras 10-20) C) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution and consideration. The plaintiff's failure to produce the original voucher and the discrepancies in the ledger and cheque details led to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden. (Paras 15-25) D) Civil Procedure - Decree - Setting aside - The trial court's decree was set aside as the plaintiff failed to prove the case. The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. (Paras 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff has proved the execution of the promissory note and the passing of consideration to the defendants, and whether the trial court's decree is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.35 of 2016, dated 19.07.2019, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, are set aside. The suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Burden of proof in negotiable instruments
- Execution of promissory note
- Proof of consideration
- Discrepancies in evidence
- Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
