9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defendant that the suit is not maintainable as there is material alteration of the suit promissory note. It is true that the statutory or legal presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is important. However the plaintiff in a case of this nature cannot simply rely upon the statutory presumption when there is material alteration. In the present case, the defendant has come forward how the plaintiff used to get the signature in the promissory notes at the time of borrowing money and about previous transaction between the plaintiff and defendant. The lower Appellate Court has accepted the case of defendant and disbelieved the version of plaintiff with regard to consideration. Having regard to the finding of the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 60,000/- under the pretext that some more amount is also due by calculating interest exorbitantly. It is the specific case of the defendant that the suit promissory notes have been materially altered by deleting the sum of ₹ 60,000/- and by inserting the figure 1,20,000/-. (4) The trial Court after framing necessary issues and after considering the fact that the defendant had admitted his signature in the suit promissory notes and also relying upon Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, held that the plaintiff has proved the execution of promissory notes by the defendant and therefore, he is entitled to get the decree as prayed for. (5) Even though a specific issue was framed as to whether there is a material alterati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of money without considering the legal presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when it was considered by the trial Court? (2) Whether the first appellate court is right to shift the burden of proof of payment of money under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2 pronotes when the defendant/respondent admitted the execution of the said promotes and did not made nay reply to the appellant's notice? (3) Whether the first appellate court is right in dismissing the suit for recovery of money disbelieving the payment of consideration under Ex.A1 andEx.A2 pronotes without an material evidence or documents? (4) Whether the first appellate court is right in reversing the well considered judgement and decree of the trial court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry notes as ₹ 60, 000/- However in the written statement a specific plea is raised by the defendant that the suit is not maintainable as there is material alteration of the suit promissory note. The Lower Appellate Court has given a categorical finding with regard to material alteration. From the evidence it is established that the figure has been altered even though the amount in words is consistent and there is no alteration. This would only probalise the case of the defendant that the suit promissory note was executed without filling the amounts in words and by mentioning the figure as ₹ 60,000/- (10) When the plaintiff came forward with the suit based on pronote, any material alteration in the promissory note will be fata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
