2022 (1) TMI 803 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms plaintiff's claim of borrowed money and promissory note execution, dismissing defendant's appeal.

The court affirmed the lower courts' decisions in a dispute where the plaintiff claimed the defendant borrowed money, executed a promissory note, and the ... Dishonor of Cheque - suit barred by time limitation or not - suit promissory note Ex.A1 is materially altered or not - failure to to disprove the signature in the Ex.A1 or not? - Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act - respondent/plaintiff has proved the fact of execution of promissory note Ex.A1 and the payment of consideration to the appellant or not? - existence of suspicious circumstances - HELD THAT:- It is trite law that if a suit has been filed on the basis of a Negotiable Instrument, it is for the plaintiff to prove the execution. Afterwards, under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden has been shifted on the shoulder of the defendant, to prove that the said instrument is not supported with consideration. Here it is a case, when at the time the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, in her evidence, she has narrated the time, manner and the circumstances on which, the defendant received the loan amount and about the execution of the pro-note. In respect of the execution, the evidence given by P.W.1 was fully corroborated through the evidence given by P.W.2, who is one of the attestors, signed in the pro-note as a witness - it is the stand taken by the defendant that the suit pro-note is a fabricated one and the signature found in the suit pro-note is not belonged to him. Though it was argued on the side of the defendant that the suit pro-note is a forged one, the evidence let in by P.W.1 and P.W.2 is sufficient to accept the execution of the pro-note. In respect of the signature of the defendant found in the proof affidavit filed by him and in respect of the signature found in the written statement, the defendant himself gave evidence as the signature found in those documents, are not belonged to him. Therefore, the said evidence given by the defendant is quite clear that he has not approached the trial Court with clear case. The said circumstances shows that the defendant himself having confusion with his case and therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff, after fabricating the false pro-note, filed a false case against the defendant - In the event that the evidence given by P.W.1 and P.W.2 in respect of the execution of pro-note is appears to be found sufficient, it is for the defendant to send those disputed documents for comparison. In fact, before the trial Court, the defendant has not produced the documents which are all signed by him in the relevant point of time for enabling the Court to come to the correct conclusion. Of course, for comparison under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, being the reason that the signature found in the written statement and vakalat are not contemporary documents, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to send those documents for chemical examination. The Courts below have traversed on the same line and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved her case and rejected the claim made by the defendant - the suit pro-note was executed by the defendant. The second appeal is dismissed. Issues:1. Dispute over concurrent findings in lower courts2. Plaintiff's claim of loan repayment with interest3. Defendant's denial of borrowing money and fabrication of promissory note4. Trial court's decision, appeal, and subsequent second appeal5. Substantial Questions of Law raised6. Burden of proof on plaintiff in case of a Negotiable Instrument7. Evidence supporting the execution of the promissory note8. Defendant's argument of fabricated promissory note and mismatching signatures9. Defendant's failure to provide documents for comparison10. Courts' conclusions and dismissal of defendant's claimAnalysis:The judgment addresses the appeal arising from the lower courts' findings in a case involving a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant borrowed a sum of money for house construction, agreed to repay with interest, and executed a promissory note. The defendant denied borrowing any money and alleged the promissory note was fabricated. The trial court and the appellate court upheld the plaintiff's claim, leading to the defendant's second appeal.The Substantial Questions of Law raised included issues of limitation, material alteration of the promissory note, proof of defendant's signature, application of the Indian Evidence Act, and the plaintiff's burden of proof. The court emphasized that in cases involving Negotiable Instruments, the plaintiff must prove execution, shifting the burden to the defendant to disprove consideration. The plaintiff's witnesses and evidence supported the execution of the promissory note, despite the defendant's claims of forgery.The defendant's argument of mismatching signatures was countered by the court, highlighting the defendant's own admission of confusion regarding his signatures on various documents. The defendant's failure to provide documents for comparison weakened his case further. The court noted that the defendant's plea of a fabricated promissory note was not substantiated by evidence.Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, stating that the plaintiff had successfully proven the case, and the defendant's claims were unsubstantiated. The judgment concluded by dismissing the second appeal, with no costs awarded to either party. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed, bringing an end to the legal proceedings.