Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURTDishonor of Cheque - rebuttal of presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - appellant had pleaded and proved that there was material alteration in the suit pronote - failure to note that a materially altered Negotiable Instrument was void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- Here, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant himself written the word '₹ 40,000/-' in the pro-note. Further in respect of the same, while at the time the defendant gave evidence as D.W.1, he himself admitted that the word '4' was written by him in the pro-note. After admitting, now without any substantial evidence, arguing before this Court that the suit pro-note was materially altered, cannot be accepted. During the time of transaction the defendant was a contractor in Municipality, so, naturally he would have the wide knowledge in respect of the instrument and also he knows the value of his signature - Hence, being the reason that the defendant admits the signature found in the pro-note is his signature under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it was understand that the defendant gave authority to the plaintiff to fill up the same as a complete Negotiable Instrument. Before the trial Court the factum of material alteration is not proved and accordingly, in order to rebut the presumption raised under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the defendant has not produced any relevant evidence to show that the suit pro-note is not upon due consideration. Though it was contended on the side of the defendant that the alleged transaction is a loan transaction, in order to prove the same he has not produced the substantial evidence. Therefore, the substantial Questions of Law raised are answered in favour of the respondent. Appeal dismissed.
|