Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Godhra, which partly allowed the respondent's suit for recovery of Rs. 19,275. The respondent claimed that the appellant had borrowed money on interest and issued a cheque for the amount, which was dishonoured. The appellant denied the allegations, asserting that the cheque was without consideration and that the respondent was not licensed to lend money. The trial court found that the appellant did not discharge the burden of proving lack of consideration and relied on the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant's counsel argued that the presumption could be rebutted by the circumstances and evidence presented. The court referenced precedents, including a Full Bench decision from the Rajasthan High Court and a Supreme Court ruling, emphasizing that the burden of proof shifts based on the evidence presented. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial court's findings, concluding that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments - Presumption of Consideration - Burden of Proof - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118 - The court held that the presumption of consideration for negotiable instruments remains until rebutted by the defendant. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving lack of consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rebutted by the appellant.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the trial court's decree that the appellant owed the respondent Rs. 15,930 plus interest.
Law Points
- Negotiable Instruments
- Presumption of Consideration
- Burden of Proof
- Evidence Act
