Promissory Note : Defendants alleging forgery and fabrication but not sending it for expert opinion : Presumption Drawn
Madras High Court Upholds Trial Court's Decision on Promissory Note Case. Court Affirms Presumption Under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Dismissing Appeal Against Trial Court's Judgment
In a ruling, the Madras High Court has upheld the trial court's decision in a case involving a promissory note, reinforcing the legal presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appeal, filed by the defendants Pavayammal and others, was dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment that ordered the defendants to repay Rs. 13,55,000 with interest to the plaintiff, R. Venugopalan.
The case originated from a promissory note executed by T. Chandrasekaran, the deceased husband of the first defendant, Pavayammal. Chandrasekaran had allegedly borrowed Rs. 10 lakhs from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay with interest. Following Chandrasekaran's demise, the plaintiff sought to recover the amount from his legal heirs.
The defendants challenged the authenticity of the promissory note, alleging forgery and fabrication. However, they failed to substantiate these claims with evidence or expert opinion. In contrast, the plaintiff presented witnesses and documentation supporting the execution of the note, thereby establishing a prima facie case.
The trial court's judgment, which was contested in the appeal, found the promissory note genuine, and the High Court concurred, stating that the plaintiff had successfully discharged the initial burden of proof. The defendants' failure to produce sufficient evidence to rebut the legal presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act proved detrimental to their case.
Justice R. Sakthivel, presiding over the appeal, emphasized that minor contradictions in witness testimonies were not enough to undermine the plaintiff's case. The court also noted that the ancestral property left by Chandrasekaran was sufficient to maintain the suit against his heirs.
This ruling reinforces the importance of the presumption of legitimacy attached to negotiable instruments, underscoring the necessity for defendants to provide compelling evidence when disputing such claims.
Bottom Line:
Suit promissory note attracts presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once plaintiff establishes prima facie case of its execution. Defendants must rebut presumption through sufficient evidence.
Statutory provision(s): Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1
Pavayammal v. R. Venugopalan, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2792087
