Cheque presumption can be rebutted by suspicious alterations and defence evidence; money-lenders bar applies only on proof of statutory status.
A signed cheque did not, by itself, justify recovery where the instrument showed suspicious alterations, including different inks and an added zero, and the defendant rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by showing the cheque had been handed over blank and the alleged loan was not proved. The suit was also held not to be barred under Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976, because the statutory bar applies only when the claimant is proved to be a registered and licensed money-lender advancing a loan covered by the Act. The decree dismissing the suit was sustained on merits, while the money-lenders finding was set aside.
Issues: (i) Whether the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, stood rebutted in respect of the cheque relied upon by the plaintiff. (ii) Whether the suit for recovery was barred under Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976.
Issue (i): Whether the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, stood rebutted in respect of the cheque relied upon by the plaintiff.
Analysis: The cheque produced on record showed suspicious features, including apparent use of different inks and a later addition of a zero in the amount. The defendant admitted his signature but explained that the cheque had been handed over blank in connection with an earlier transaction involving his father. On the evidence, the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged loan transaction or that the cheque represented discharge of a legally enforceable liability. The statutory presumption was therefore displaced by the defence evidence and surrounding circumstances.
Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted and the plaintiff did not establish liability on the basis of the cheque.
Issue (ii): Whether the suit for recovery was barred under Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976.
Analysis: The Act bars a suit by a money-lender for recovery of a loan unless the statutory requirements of registration and licence are satisfied. But the definition of loan excludes advances falling within the statutory exceptions, including advances based on a negotiable instrument. The defendant did not prove that the plaintiff's recovery suits related to loans covered by the Act or that the plaintiff fell within the statutory definition of money-lender for the present transaction. Accordingly, the bar under Section 3 was not attracted on the facts proved.
Conclusion: The suit was not barred under Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976.
Final Conclusion: The decree dismissing the suit was sustained on merits, while the concurrent finding on non-maintainability under the money-lenders statute was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A signed cheque does not, by itself, sustain recovery where the cheque bears suspicious alterations and the opposing party rebuts the statutory presumption; and the money-lenders bar applies only when the claimant is proved to be a registered and licensed money-lender advancing a loan covered by the Act.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
