2022 (1) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - rebuttal of presumption - Recovery of money from the defendant - It is alleged that suit pronotes have been fabricated in the name of the defendant - HELD THAT - Admittedly, in the written statement the defendant nowhere averred that the signature in the suit promissory note is not that of her. It is impliedly admitted that the suit promissory notes were executed by the defendant, but as blank promissory notes. Since the defendant admitted the execution of promissory notes, it give raise to presumption that consideration has been passed to the defendant as written in the suit pronote, as per Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is clear that P.W.1 had not admitted that he had no means to lend money. Further, there is no pleading regarding the means of the plaintiff to lend money and further suggestion was also not put to the plaintiff whether he had no means to lend money. The question regarding why 3 pronotes executed on the same date and the suit was filed at the fag end of the limitation were ever suggested during cross examination on P.W.1 and that aspect was also not pleaded in the written statement. Further the defendant had not attempted to produce and mark the complaint given by the Muthuveerapan against the defendant and her husband - as per Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it has not been satisfactorily rebutted by the defendant proved that the pronotes have been executed by the defendant for the consideration mentioned in the pronotes. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that execution of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 promissory notes by the defendant had also been proved by the plaintiff and hence, the same has been executed by the defendant. This Court, after careful perusal of the materials available on record, especially, evidence led on record by the plaintiff, finds no error in the Judgments and Decrees passed by the Courts below and as such, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the well reasoned Judgment. The present appeal fails and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Recovery of money through promissory notes, consideration for promissory notes, presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, sufficiency of evidence, judgment and decree by lower courts.

Analysis:

1. Recovery of Money through Promissory Notes:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of money from the defendant based on three promissory notes executed by the defendant for a total of ?4,00,000. The defendant denied the averments, claiming the promissory notes were fabricated and not supported by consideration. The trial court allowed the suit, which was upheld by the first appellate court.

2. Consideration for Promissory Notes:
The defendant argued that the promissory notes were security for a mortgage transaction with a third party and not a loan from the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff presented evidence, including the defendant's admission of executing the promissory notes, to establish consideration as per Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

3. Presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act:
The plaintiff relied on the presumption under Section 118 of the Act, which states that consideration is presumed when the promissory notes are admitted to be executed. The defendant failed to rebut this presumption satisfactorily, leading the court to conclude that the promissory notes were indeed executed by the defendant for the mentioned consideration.

4. Sufficiency of Evidence:
Both parties presented witnesses and documents to support their claims. The court noted that the plaintiff's evidence, including the defendant's admission and related correspondence, was sufficient to establish the execution of the promissory notes and the passing of consideration, dismissing the defendant's arguments against the sufficiency of evidence.

5. Judgment and Decree by Lower Courts:
The lower courts carefully analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The judgments passed by the trial court and the first appellate court were found to be well-reasoned and based on a correct appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. As a result, the High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that no interference was warranted.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the lower courts' judgments, finding no grounds for interference. The court affirmed the validity of the promissory notes, the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instrument Act, and the sufficiency of evidence presented by the plaintiff. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.