Siram Srirama Murthy v. Meka Suryanarayanamma

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2018 TaxPub(CL) 0908 (Telanga-AP-HC) Siram Srirama Murthy v. Meka Suryanarayanamma NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 --Presumptions as to negotiable instruments--Admission of execution of promissory note by borrowerBenefit of presumption to lender under section 118----Where suit was filed against the borrower for recovery of borrowed amount and the borrower failed to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, thus, lender was entitled to the benefit of presumption arose under section 118(a) in his favour.--Borrower obtained a sum for the purpose of his necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the lender. In spite of giving notice, the borrower failed to pay the amount. Therefore, suit was filed against the borrower for recovery of borrowed amount along with interest. Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of lender. Borrower filed an appeal on the ground that the said promissory note was not true, valid and it was not supported by consideration. Further, the lender did not enter the witness box for cross-examination, therefore, the suit was not to be decreed in favour of him.Held: â€“ It is settled position of law that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by consideration. Further, an adverse inference under section 114 could not be drawn for mere non-examination of the lender when other material witness was produced. Further, the borrower failed to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, thus, lender was entitled to the benefit of presumption arose under section 118(a) in his favour. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114 *REFERRED :* Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1927 PC 230, Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh, AIR 1930 Lahore 1, Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh, AIR 1931 Bombay 97, Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat, AIR 1970 Madh Pra 225, Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath, AIR 1971 Allahabad 29, Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand, AIR 1974 Punj and Har 7, Heerachand v. Jeevraj, AIR 1959 Raj. 1 and G. Vasu v. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri, AIR 1987 Andhra Pradesh 139 FAVOUR : Against the appellant. A.Y. : IN THE TELANGANA & ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J. Siram Srirama Murthy v. Meka Suryanarayanamma Appeal Suit No. 1006 of 1999 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2018 TaxPub(CL) 0908 (Telanga-AP-HC)

Siram Srirama Murthy v. Meka Suryanarayanamma

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881

--Presumptions as to negotiable instruments--Admission of execution of promissory note by borrowerBenefit of presumption to lender under section 118----Where suit was filed against the borrower for recovery of borrowed amount and the borrower failed to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, thus, lender was entitled to the benefit of presumption arose under section 118(a) in his favour.--Borrower obtained a sum for the purpose of his necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the lender. In spite of giving notice, the borrower failed to pay the amount. Therefore, suit was filed against the borrower for recovery of borrowed amount along with interest. Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of lender. Borrower filed an appeal on the ground that the said promissory note was not true, valid and it was not supported by consideration. Further, the lender did not enter the witness box for cross-examination, therefore, the suit was not to be decreed in favour of him.Held: â€“ It is settled position of law that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by consideration. Further, an adverse inference under section 114 could not be drawn for mere non-examination of the lender when other material witness was produced. Further, the borrower failed to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, thus, lender was entitled to the benefit of presumption arose under section 118(a) in his favour.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114

REFERRED : Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1927 PC 230, Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh, AIR 1930 Lahore 1, Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh, AIR 1931 Bombay 97, Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat, AIR 1970 Madh Pra 225, Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath, AIR 1971 Allahabad 29, Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand, AIR 1974 Punj and Har 7, Heerachand v. Jeevraj, AIR 1959 Raj. 1 and G. Vasu v. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri, AIR 1987 Andhra Pradesh 139

FAVOUR : Against the appellant.

A.Y. :

IN THE TELANGANA & ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J.

Siram Srirama Murthy v. Meka Suryanarayanamma

Appeal Suit No. 1006 of 1999