Rebuttable cheque liability presumption and concurrent factual findings limit second appeal interference in money-lending dispute.

Concurrent findings on the alleged bar under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act were treated as factual, because whether the plaintiff carried on money-lending business depended on evidence; in second appeal, no substantial question of law arose to reopen that issue. On the cheque claim, admission of issuance attracted the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheques were issued towards a legally enforceable liability. The defendant's contradictory defence and lack of convincing proof failed to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, so the decree in favour of the plaintiff remained undisturbed and the second appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was barred under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act and whether the issue could be reopened in second appeal; (ii) Whether the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was rebutted and the cheques were shown to have been issued otherwise than in discharge of a legally enforceable liability.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was barred under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act and whether the issue could be reopened in second appeal.

Analysis: The question whether the plaintiff was carrying on the business of money lending was treated as a factual issue requiring evidence. The first appellate court had already considered and rejected the plea of bar under the money-lending statute on the evidence led. In second appeal, no substantial question of law arises from a reappreciation of such factual findings, especially where the record does not establish that the plaintiff was in the business of money lending.

Conclusion: The plea of statutory bar failed and no question warranting interference in second appeal arose.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was rebutted and the cheques were shown to have been issued otherwise than in discharge of a legally enforceable liability.

Analysis: The defendant admitted issuance of the cheques, attracting the presumption that they were issued towards discharge of debt or liability. That presumption is rebuttable, but the defendant offered only a contradictory defence and no convincing proof of any investment scheme or insurance-related purpose for the cheques. The surrounding circumstances, including the cheque particulars, the absence of any contemporaneous receipt or counterclaim, and the failure to displace the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, supported the concurrent findings of liability. The challenge therefore did not disclose any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The presumption of liability was not rebutted and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent factual findings were left undisturbed, and the second appeal failed for want of any substantial question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence will not be interfered with unless a substantial question of law arises, and admission of cheque issuance raises a rebuttable presumption of legally enforceable liability that must be displaced on preponderance of probabilities.

---