Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Ss. 118, 20, 21, 46 — Presumption as to consideration and execution — Burden of proof — When raised, burden shifts — Rebuttal — Failure of defendant to enter witness box — Effect Plaintiff pleaded and proved that defendant borrowed Rs.90,000 on 19-05-2008 and executed a promissory note (Ex.A1). Plaintiff examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 (Headmaster) and proved the signatures of defendant in attendance registers (Exs.X1 to X3). Defendant pleaded forgery but did not enter the witness box nor adduce any evidence rebutting the statutory presumption. Once the presumption under S.118 stood established, burden shifted to defendant. In absence of any rebuttal, the plaintiff’s case stood probabilised. Trial Court’s finding that lack of attesting witnesses and lack of scribe evidence was fatal was held erroneous. Attestation of promissory note not mandatory. Held, First Appellate Court rightly decreed the suit.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Ss. 118, 20, 21, 46 — Presumption as to consideration and execution — Burden of proof — When raised, burden shifts — Rebuttal — Failure of defendant to enter witness box — Effect
Plaintiff pleaded and proved that defendant borrowed Rs.90,000 on 19-05-2008 and executed a promissory note (Ex.A1). Plaintiff examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 (Headmaster) and proved the signatures of defendant in attendance registers (Exs.X1 to X3). Defendant pleaded forgery but did not enter the witness box nor adduce any evidence rebutting the statutory presumption. Once the presumption under S.118 stood established, burden shifted to defendant. In absence of any rebuttal, the plaintiff’s case stood probabilised. Trial Court’s finding that lack of attesting witnesses and lack of scribe evidence was fatal was held erroneous. Attestation of promissory note not mandatory. Held, First Appellate Court rightly decreed the suit.

Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 73 — Comparison of signatures by Court — Scope — Comparison with admitted signatures — Signatures in documents of later origin — When permissible
Contention that First Appellate Court compared signatures with xerox copies (Exs.A4–A14) rejected. Signatures compared with admitted signatures on vakalat, written statement, summons and with proved signatures in Exs.X1–X3 (attendance registers). Court competent to compare signatures under S.73. Defendant cannot allege prejudice when plaintiff insists on comparison and admitted signatures are available. Reliance placed on Chelladurai v. Velmurugan, S.A. No.653 of 2006 (01-04-2014), wherein the propositions were:
(i) Court should avoid comparison with signatures in documents created after dispute if opposed by party relying on disputed signature.
(ii) If party relying on disputed signature raises no objection or seeks comparison, opposite party cannot object.
(iii) When party relying on disputed document apprehends disguise, only contemporary signatures shall be used.
Held, propositions squarely applied; comparison permissible.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 100 — Second appeal — Interference with finding of First Appellate Court — When not permissible
Trial Court dismissed suit holding plaintiff failed to prove execution and consideration. First Appellate Court reversed dismissal based on evidence and proper application of presumptions under NI Act and S.73 Evidence Act. In second appeal, questions of law framed were answered against appellant. Findings of First Appellate Court were based on sound principles of law; no substantial question of law arose.

RESULT

Second Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court (A.S. No.2/2013 dated 15-11-2016) confirmed. No costs. Connected CMP closed.