TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truments Act to Ex. A.6. Expanding his this submission, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the alleged old promissory note is dated 15.06.2013, while in his Ex. B.1 letter dated 26.08.2013, just few months after the old promissory note how plaintiff could have been lamented about non-payment of interest and amount for a long period - There was no reference in Ex. B.1 that it has been written in connection with the promissory note debt. Ex. B.1 would not absolve the defendants from their very duty to rebut the presumption arose under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The arising of the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act noticed by the First Appellate Court with reference to E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note. Plaintiff filled a blank promissory note and made it suit promissory note. 4. The trial Court framed necessary issues and tried the suit. Voluminous evidence has been produced. The trial Court heavily relying on Ex. B.1, a letter dated 26.08.2013 of plaintiff concluded that that plaintiff has not proved the suit claim and thus dismissed the suit. 5. The unsuccessful plaintiff took the matter in appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli in A.S. No. 47 of 2009. 6. The first appellate Judge, came to the conclusion that the defendants having admitted their signatures in Ex. A.6, past consideration is a good consideration for a fresh promise under Ex. A6, applied Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been brought out. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the well considered judgment of the trial Court ought not to have been uprooted by the first appellate Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants would plead for revival of the trial Court's judgment and decree annulling the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would put up a reverse argument. He would submit that the First Appellate Court's judgment should be upheld and the upsetting of the trial's Court judgment by the First Appellate Court is to be confirmed. To drive home his point of view, he would refer to Sections 20 and 118 of the Negot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, the following substantial questions of law have been framed: (a) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in applying the presumption laid down in Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act when the defendants have completely denied the execution of Ex. B6? (b) Whether the lower appellate court ought to have applied the presumption available under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act to hold the improbabilities of the execution of the transaction referred to in the Ex. A.6 in view of Ex. B.1. (c) Whether the lower appellate court misconstrued the nature of Ex. A.6? 14. Let us not duplicate, make our readers boring by repeating the factual matrix, which we have already given. Let us jump into the main point, namely, wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Ex. A.6 has been given. In his cross-examination DW1/first defendant admitted that he has signed in Ex. A.6 and the signature below him is of his better half. 19. Promissory notes in the printed forms are even available in many petty shops. But Ex. A.6 is written on a adhesive stamp paper. Let us ignore its form but mindful of the substance. In substance Ex. A.6 is a promissory note. 20. Ex. A.6 is stated to have been executed on 05.05.2006. It has been attacked by the learned counsel for the appellants by referring to the year 1999 appearing in the stamp paper on which Ex. A.6 has been written and it advances the case of the appellants that Ex. A.6 has been written on a blank stamp paper. 21. Persons dabbling in money were very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Instruments Act. 24. The main mortal attack on the plaintiff's case is based on Ex. B.1. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, Ex. B.1 completely consigned Ex. A.6 to the coffin and this had resulted in eclipsing the effect of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to Ex. A.6. Expanding his this submission, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the alleged old promissory note is dated 15.06.2013, while in his Ex. B.1 letter dated 26.08.2013, just few months after the old promissory note how plaintiff could have been lamented about non-payment of interest and amount for a long period. 25. Ex. B.1 letter reads the travails of a lender. There was no reference in Ex. B.1 that it has been writt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
