Dishonoured cheque case: Defendant failed to rebut Section 118(a) presumption, trial court findings upheld

Kerala HC dismissed appeal in dishonoured cheque case. Trial court correctly found due execution of cheque based on plaintiff's testimony that defendant signed in his presence, with no challenge to signature authenticity during cross-examination. Presumption under Section 118(a) NI Act regarding consideration was properly applied. Defendant failed to rebut presumption despite claiming prior financial liability was discharged, as no evidence supported such discharge. Trial court's findings on execution, presumption, and defendant's failure to rebut were justified. Interest at 6% per annum deemed reasonable.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the findings of the trial court regarding the due execution of the cheque and the presumption under Section 118(a) of the N.I. Act warrant interferenceRs.
2. Is the trial court's finding that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118(a) of the N.I. Act based on the evidence in the caseRs.

Analysis:

The judgment involves a suit for money due under a dishonored cheque, where the trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant and her husband required funds for their business, which the plaintiff arranged through his friends. An agreement was made for repayment, and when the defendant failed to pay, the plaintiff covered the liability. The defendant denied issuing the cheque and its signature, claiming ignorance of how it came into the plaintiff's possession. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act).

The first issue pertains to the trial court's findings on the due execution of the cheque and the presumption under Section 118(a) of the N.I. Act. The defendant denied issuing the cheque and its signature, but the plaintiff testified to witnessing the defendant signing the cheque. The defendant did not take steps to disprove her signature, and no expert opinion was sought. The court agreed with the trial court that the plaintiff proved the cheque's execution, entitling him to the presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the N.I. Act.

Regarding the second issue, the defendant claimed that the liability under a previous agreement was settled, producing the agreement as evidence. However, the plaintiff asserted that the liability was not discharged, leading to the issuance of the disputed cheque. Despite the defendant's denial and lack of evidence of settlement, the trial court found the evidence insufficient to rebut the presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the N.I. Act. The appellate court cited the Supreme Court's stance on appellate power to reevaluate evidence and upheld the trial court's findings.

The appellate court found the trial court's conclusions reasonable, emphasizing the need for caution in disturbing factual findings. The trial court's decision to grant interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit was deemed appropriate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff.

---