9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial basing on the pleadings: 1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 13.01.2000 is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the part payment endorsements dated 10.01.2003 and 05.01.2006 on the back side of the suit promissory note are true, valid and binding on the defendant? 3. Whether the suit promissory note dated 13.01.2000 lacks necessary ingredients of a promissory note as defined under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? 4. To what relief? 6. The parties went to trial, where the respondent examined herself as P.W.1, attestors to both the payment endorsements as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively, while relying on Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. The appellant examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were exhibited on his behalf. 7. On the material and the evidence, the learned trial Judge rejected the defence of the appellant and accepted the claim of the respondent and basing on the evidence let in by her, decreed the suit as prayed. 8. The appellant preferred A.S.No.16 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the learned XII Additional District Judge (FTC), Vijayawada against this decree and judgment. By the decree and judgment dated 19.09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce with the case set up by her in the pleadings and also explaining the transaction under Ex.A1. 15. The sole attestor to Ex.A1 promissory note was not examined at the trial nor is there any reference to his presence in the testimony of P.W.1 during that transaction. P.W.1 not only in her examination-in-chief but also in cross-examination stood to ground in explaining the circumstances, when Ex.A1 was executed by the appellant borrowing ₹ 1,50,000/- from her agreeing to such terms stated therein. She further explained that the amount paid thereunder to the appellant was a part of earnings of her husband, who was a contractor and out of her agricultural income. 16. Admittedly, she worked in the hospital run by the respondent as an office assistant as is established by Ex.A7-certificate issued by the appellant himself dated 16.04.2002. Sincerity in work of the respondent is vouched in Ex.A7. Pertinent to note that Ex.A7 was issued subsequent to Ex.A1. Therefore, nature of the respondent being sincere as a positive attribute has to be considered in this context, against whom, by then obviously the appellant had no grouse nor could attribute any animus to fabricate a docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fines promissory note being an instrument in writing and which is not a bank note or currency. It should contain an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker. Sum of money thereunder to pay and the person to whom it should be paid, is a certainty. Such payment shall be either to his order or to the bearer of the instrument. Illustrations appended to section-4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are referring to nature of promissory notes. 24. Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act defines negotiable instrument . It reads as under: 13. Negotiable instrument .-3[(1) A negotiable instrument means a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer. 25. It includes a promissory note. What is negotiation is stated in Section 14 of the negotiable Instruments Act and it reads as under: 14. Negotiation.-When a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque is transferred to any person, so as to constitute that person the holder thereof, the instrument is said to be negotiated. 26. A careful examination of these provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act in application to Ex.A1 promissory note, makes out that it stands to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to in judgments of both the courts below, where the instances were based on promissory notes, which were scribed and executed by the appellant and where he had taken similar defence of denial of execution of the promissory notes. On his own showing, all these suits were settled in Lok Adalat for payment of ₹ 18,00,000/-. Ex.A8 is a publication taken out under Securitisation Act on behalf of State Bank of Patiala taking over possession of the properties of the hospital claimed by him, since it was found due ₹ 48,92,092/-, which was payable by 27.08.2007. These instances are sufficient to reject the contention of the appellant in this context. 35. When the testimony of P.W.2 and PW.3 is corroborating and supporting the version of P.W.1 in relation to payment endorsements, there is no reason to reject such testimony. Contra to it, except the sole testimony of the appellant as D.W.1, no other material is available. 36. 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 mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
