Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1923 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - contra evidence let in by the respondents/defendants to disprove the execution of the pronote or not - production of statement in support of their pleading set out in the written statement - burden to prove - HELD THAT:- The burden is upon the defendants that the suit promissory note was given by the deceased G.Pandurangan only in the said Finance Firm, but the defendants did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the aforesaid plea. Further, if really the said G.Pandurangan had not executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, the first defendant would have sent a reply to Ex.A2 notice. Further, she would have entered into the witness box and subjected herself for cross examination - Once it is proved that the suit promissory note has been executed by thedeceased G.Pandurangan, as per Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it has to be presumed that the said promissory note is supported by consideration. It is to be pointed out that it is not the case of the defendants that the deceased G.Pandurangan had any bad habits and he would have used the said amount for any illegal purpose. Therefore, it has to be presumed that he borrowed the amount only for the benefit of the family. Therefore, the defendants are bound to discharge the said debt from and out of the estate left by the deceased G.Pandurangan which is in their hands - the trial Court had rightly decreed the suit. Further, though the plaintiff had claimed interest at the rate of 24% till the date of the suit, the trial Court taking into consideration the transaction is not a commercial transaction, it has reduced the interest and directed the defendants to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the principal and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum. But the first Appellate Court without appreciating the evidence in a proper perspective had erroneously reversed the findings of the trial Court and therefore, the Second Appeal has to be allowed. The Second Appeal is allowed with costs.
|