TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it the execution of pronote. However, based on evidence, the Courts below have held that the execution of pronote is proved. As per the pronote, the amount was borrowed on the date of pronote. However, the pleading of the plaintiff is specific that the consideration for the pronote was the money borrowed by the defendant on various occasions. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff is that the suit pronote is supported by consideration. Merely because the plaintiff advanced loan to the defendant on various dates and the defendant executed the pronote subsequently in recognition of his liability, it cannot be said that the pronote is not supported by consideration. There is no difficulty in accepting the legal position that a statutory presumption is always rebuttable - However, in the present case, the plaintiff has taken meticulous efforts to prove the transaction. This Court justifies the findings of the Courts below that the pronote executed by the defendant is supported by consideration. In the instant case, no motive was specifically pleaded by the appellant against the plaintiff/respondent for filing the suit on the basis of pronote. In a suit based on pronote, the questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s debts borrowed from various creditors. It is further stated that the plaintiff had given a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- in all and the defendant executed a demand Promissory Note on 02.02.2010 in favour of the plaintiff acknowledging the debt and promised to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a., on demand. Stating that the appellant/defendant failed and neglected to repay the money borrowed from the plaintiff, the plaintiff came forward with the suit for recovery of a sum of ₹ 7,60,000/-, being a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- towards principal and ₹ 2,60,000/- towards interest. 5. The suit was resisted by the appellant by filing a written statement, denying every averments made in the plaint. The execution of the suit pronote was also denied by the appellant. Stating that the plaintiff has not given the exact dates on while the appellant borrowed money from the plaintiff, it is also contended that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Since the pronote contains a clause that the entire amount should be repaid on or before 01.02.2012, it is also contended by the appellant that the pronote produced by the plaintiff is not a pronote in the strict sense and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is barred by limitation if no dates specified/pleaded for borrowing money in a money suit? 5. Whether the court can place reliance upon the suggestion put to a witness during cross-examination amount to an admission of the execution of the pronote? 6. Whether the Court can shift the burden of proof upon the appellant and apply statutory presumption under Section 118[2] of the Negotiable Instruments Act when execution is denied? 7. Whether not the burden of proving the passing of consideration is upon whom in a money suit; whether it is upon the plaintiff? 9. In the present case, the Courts below have specifically held that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the pronote. Though the appellant disputed his signature in the pronote, he did not take any steps to send the document for expert's opinion. There is a presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if execution of the pronote is proved. In the instant case, the specific case of the plaintiff is that the appellant borrowed hand loans on several occasions and executed a pronote subsequently and agreed to repay the amount with interest @ 24% p.a. The appellant has not pleaded any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to raise a presumption in his favour. The evidence required to shift the burden need not necessarily be direct evidence i.e., oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by opposite party; it may comprise circumstantial evidence or presumptions of law or fact. To illustrate how this doctrine works in practice, we may take a suit on a promissory note. Under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist . Therefore, the burden initially rests on the plaintiff who has to prove that the promissory note was executed by the defendant. As soon as the execution of the promissory note is proved, the rule of presumption laid down in Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act helps him to shift the burden to the other side. The burden of proof as a question of law rests, therefore, on the plaintiff; but as soon as the execution is proved, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposes a duty on the court to raise a presumption in his favour that the said instrument was made for consideration. This presumption shifts the burden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence of the plaintiff is contrary to the terms of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the statutory presumption u/s. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been rebutted in the present case and this Court should draw adverse inference against the plaintiff for not giving the particulars of several transactions which are the basis for filing of the suit. Lastly, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of V.K. Siddha Padayachi Vs. Indian Bank Branch at Shevapet, Salem, rep. by its District Manager, Coimbatore and Another reported in 2000 [1] CTC 654, wherein it is held as follows:- 11. Notwithstanding the defects pointed out above, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent would stated that (1) when once the execution of the promissory note has been admitted, the defendant cannot escape liability, (2) that the presumption arising out of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be attracted and that (3) the issue being a question of fact may not be interfered with under Section 100 of Civil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently in recognition of his liability, it cannot be said that the pronote is not supported by consideration. There is no difficulty in accepting the legal position that a statutory presumption is always rebuttable. However, in the present case, the plaintiff has taken meticulous efforts to prove the transaction. Having regard to the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the both sides before the Trial Court, this Court justifies the findings of the Courts below that the pronote executed by the defendant is supported by consideration. 15. In the instant case, no motive was specifically pleaded by the appellant against the plaintiff/respondent for filing the suit on the basis of pronote. In a suit based on pronote, the question regarding consideration cannot be decided merely on the basis of pleadings of parties. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the suit pronote is supported by consideration. From the facts narrated, this Court is unable to agree with the appellant that the respondent/plaintiff has withheld any evidence to give room for drawing any adverse inference. 16. From the entire evidence as discussed by C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
