Respondent rebuts presumption under Section 139, cheque as security, appellant lacks evidence, appeal rejected.

The respondent successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by demonstrating that the cheque was issued as security and not for a legally enforceable debt. The court found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the additional amount claimed beyond the advance payment. Additionally, the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period without any application for condonation of delay, resulting in the appeal being rejected. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent succeeded in rebutting presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument ActRs.
2. Whether the complaint is within limitationRs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the respondent succeeded in rebutting presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument ActRs.

The appellant's case is based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 19th November 2009, wherein the appellant agreed to buy a property from the respondent for Rs. 7,50,000. Due to the respondent's failure to perform his part, he issued a cheque for Rs. 15,00,000 as damages. The cheque was dishonored due to "Opening balance insufficient," leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

The appellant argued that the Magistrate failed to draw the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which assumes the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The appellant claimed the cheque amount included the advance payment and damages for non-performance of the contract.

However, the respondent contended that the cheque was issued as security and not for a legally enforceable debt. The respondent also argued that the amount of Rs. 15,00,000 was not justified and the receipt produced by the appellant was fabricated.

The court observed that the MOU did not mention any damages or compensation for non-performance. The appellant failed to provide a clear calculation of how the amount of Rs. 15,00,000 was arrived at, beyond the Rs. 5,00,000 advance. The court noted that no prudent person would agree to pay Rs. 10,00,000 as damages for a Rs. 5,00,000 advance without clear terms in the MOU.

The court concluded that the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 by showing that the cheque was issued as security and not for a legally enforceable debt. The evidence and cross-examination supported the respondent's claim, and the appellant failed to prove the additional amount was legally recoverable.

2. Whether the complaint is within limitationRs.

The court examined the relevant dates to determine if the complaint was filed within the limitation period. The cheque was dated 7th February 2011 and was dishonored on 8th February 2011. The appellant issued a demand notice on 19th February 2011, which the respondent received on 21st February 2011. The respondent had 15 days to make the payment, expiring on 7th March 2011. The appellant had one month from this date to file the complaint, which expired on 6th April 2011.

The complaint was filed on 8th April 2011, two days beyond the limitation period. The court noted that there was no application for condonation of delay, and the complaint was time-barred.

Conclusion:

The court upheld the Magistrate's decision, finding that the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 and that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period. The appeal was rejected, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

---