Court dismisses suit over altered promissory notes, shifts burden of proof to plaintiff. Statutory presumption challenged.

The lower appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of a loan amount based on promissory notes due to material alteration in the notes, shifting the burden of proof on payment of money to the plaintiff. The court found discrepancies in consideration, leading to the rejection of the suit. The plaintiff's reliance on statutory presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was challenged, and the appeal against the lower appellate court's decision was dismissed, upholding the lower court's judgment.

---

---

Issues:
Recovery of loan amount based on promissory notes, Material alteration in promissory notes, Legal presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Burden of proof on payment of money, Dismissal of suit for recovery of money, Consideration under promissory notes, Admissibility of evidence, Statutory presumption in case of material alteration, Appeal against lower appellate court's decision.

Issue 1: Recovery of loan amount based on promissory notes
The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of a loan amount with interest based on two promissory notes executed by the defendant. The trial court held that the plaintiff proved the execution of the promissory notes and was entitled to the decree. However, the lower appellate court set aside this decision, stating that the plaintiff had materially altered the promissory notes by correcting the figures, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

Issue 2: Material alteration in promissory notes
The defendant contended that the plaintiff altered the promissory notes by changing the amount from &8377; 60,000 to &8377; 1,20,000. The lower appellate court found evidence of alteration in the figures, even though the amount in words remained consistent. This alteration was deemed material, leading to the dismissal of the suit by the plaintiff.

Issue 3: Legal presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
While the execution of the promissory notes was admitted, the defendant denied the passing of consideration as stated in the document. The lower appellate court found that the alteration in the promissory notes was material, affecting the maintainability of the suit. The plaintiff's reliance on the statutory presumption under Sec.118 of the Act was challenged due to the material alteration.

Issue 4: Burden of proof on payment of money
The plaintiff argued that since the defendant admitted the execution of the promissory notes, the burden of proof regarding the payment of money should not shift to the plaintiff. However, the lower appellate court considered the material alteration and shifted the burden of proof, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

Issue 5: Dismissal of suit for recovery of money
The lower appellate court dismissed the suit based on the material alteration in the promissory notes, ruling in favor of the defendant. The court found discrepancies in the plaintiff's case regarding consideration and previous transactions, leading to the rejection of the suit for recovery of money.

Issue 6: Consideration under promissory notes
The defendant raised specific objections regarding the consideration mentioned in the promissory notes, alleging material alteration. The lower appellate court found merit in the defendant's arguments, leading to the dismissal of the suit by the plaintiff.

Issue 7: Statutory presumption in case of material alteration
The plaintiff's reliance on the statutory presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was challenged due to the material alteration in the promissory notes. The lower appellate court's decision to dismiss the suit was based on the finding of material alteration, which affected the plaintiff's claim.

Issue 8: Appeal against lower appellate court's decision
The plaintiff appealed against the lower appellate court's decision, arguing that the trial court's findings in favor of the plaintiff were not adequately considered. However, the court found no substantial questions of law to interfere with the lower appellate court's decision, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal and confirming the lower court's judgment.

This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues involved in the judgment, including the recovery of loan amount, material alteration in promissory notes, legal presumptions, burden of proof, and the dismissal of the suit for recovery of money. Each issue is examined in-depth based on the court's findings and the arguments presented by the parties involved.

---