2022 (4) TMI 1030 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of suit pronote - presumption as contemplated under section 118 a of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is presumed unless and until the same is rebutted by the defendants, or not? - the suit pronote was proved or not - whether the endorsement made by the original promisee assigning the right under the pronote in favour of the plaintiff is valid or not? - HELD THAT - The question of law raised by the appellant is on the assumption that the plaintiff/appellant has let in evidence to prove due execution of the Pronote. When the Courts below have concurrently held that the Pronote is not proved in the manner known of law, the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, cannot be applied. Though the learned counsel for the appellant raised a question of law with regard to the appreciation of evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, this Court is unable to find any irregularity or perversity in the findings of the Courts below on the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides. In the absence of any perversity or illegality in the decisions rendered by the Courts below, this Court is unable to interfere with the findings of facts reached by the Courts below. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over the execution of a pronote and passing of consideration.
- Application of statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Evaluation of evidence presented by both parties.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum with interest against the deceased 1st defendant, claiming the pronote was transferred to them by the original promisee. The defendants contested, alleging the pronote was fabricated. The Trial Court questioned if the pronote was proved validly and if the endorsement transferring rights was valid.

2. Both Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court found the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the pronote and passing of consideration. The Lower Appellate Court emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal.

3. The plaintiff raised substantial questions of law in the Second Appeal, questioning the dismissal based on the admitted signature on the pronote and the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The plaintiff argued the evidence presented proved the execution of the pronote.

4. The High Court rejected the appeal, stating that the lower courts correctly found the pronote was not proven as per legal standards. The court highlighted that the statutory presumption cannot apply if due execution is not established. The court found no irregularity in the evaluation of evidence by the lower courts and upheld their decisions.

5. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal, concluding that there was no merit in challenging the lower courts' findings. The judgment emphasized the importance of proving the execution of legal documents and the insufficiency of evidence presented by the plaintiff in this case.