9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 313 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - Suit for recovery of costs and future interest, on the foot of a promissory note - part payment endorsements on the back side of the suit promissory note are true or not - necessary ingredients of a promissory note as defined under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, present or not - HELD THAT - A careful examination of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act in application to Ex.A1 promissory note, makes out that it stands to such description. The predominant consideration stated not only in Section 4 but also as to negotiability, being its one of principal features, described in Sections 13 and 14 of this Act, leaves no manner of doubt, of its nature. Thus, being a negotiable instrument with such characteristics it can be enforced as such. Even otherwise, if the contention of the appellant is accepted, it being an incomplete instrument, the Negotiable Instruments Act did not prohibit enforcing it in the manner stated in Section 20 therein relating to inchoate stamped instruments. The defence of the appellant is only with reference to want of contents in this promissory note describing the parties thereto and not with reference to other characteristics - the premise sought to be made out by the appellant is non existent having regard its nature, Ex.A1 is meeting the requirements being a legal and enforceable negotiable instrument. The peculiarity in this case is that Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are attributed to the appellant, he being their author. In such circumstances, the burden is very heavy on the appellant being the defendant in the suit, to substantiate his defence as against the material placed by the respondent. Intrinsic worth of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 should be considered in this context to aid the testimony placed by the respondent on record - the material on record in this case, particularly proof offered by the respondent basing on Ex.A1, her testimony as P.W.1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 and supporting testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3, did establish such transactions. The legal burden in terms of Section 101 of the Evidence Act on the respondent stood discharged thus. Thus, rejecting the contention of appellant on consideration of material, since the entire case revolves around appreciation of evidence and fact based, as rightly pointed out for the respondent, there are no such questions of law much less substantial questions raised in this second appeal for consideration and determination. This case did not meet the requirement under Section 100 CPC for this Court to reconsider the matter - the second appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and enforceability of the promissory note dated 13.01.2000. 2. Validity of the part payment endorsements dated 10.01.2003 and 05.01.2006. 3. Compliance of the promissory note with Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Burden of proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity and Enforceability of the Promissory Note The respondent (plaintiff) claimed that the appellant (defendant) borrowed ?1,50,000 on 13.01.2000, agreeing to repay with interest at 24% p.a., and executed a promissory note (Ex.A1). The appellant denied the execution of the promissory note and claimed it was barred by time. The trial court found the promissory note valid, based on the respondent's testimony and supporting evidence, and decreed the suit. The appellate court upheld this decision. Issue 2: Validity of Part Payment Endorsements The respondent asserted that the appellant made part payments of ?1,000 each on 10.01.2003 and 05.01.2006, endorsed on the promissory note. The appellant denied these endorsements. The trial court accepted the endorsements based on the testimonies of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who attested the payments, and the appellate court confirmed this finding. Issue 3: Compliance with Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The appellant contended that the promissory note was incomplete and did not meet the requirements of Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court examined Section 4, which defines a promissory note as an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money. The court found that Ex.A1 met these requirements and was a valid negotiable instrument. Even if considered incomplete, it could still be enforced under Section 20 of the Act, relating to inchoate stamped instruments. Issue 4: Burden of Proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act The court emphasized that the legal burden of proving the promissory note and endorsements rested on the respondent. The respondent's testimony, supported by P.W.2 and P.W.3, was found satisfactory. The appellant's failure to subject the documents to handwriting analysis further weakened his defense. The court concluded that the respondent discharged her burden under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, while the appellant failed to discharge his evidential burden under Section 102. Conclusion: The court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgments of the lower courts. The appellant was ordered to bear his own costs and pay the respondent's costs throughout. Pending miscellaneous petitions were closed, and interim orders vacated.
|
