Pleadings — Parties bound by pleadings — Departure impermissible — Pleas not taken in written statement cannot be raised Defendant raised contentions regarding (a) plaintiff’s financial capacity, (b) jurisdiction of Court, and (c) alleged material alteration, without having pleaded them in the written statement. Trial Court rightly rejected these contentions. Supported by precedents: • Duggineni Seshagiri Rao v. Kothapalli Venkateswara Rao (plaintiff’s financial capacity cannot be a ground when not pleaded); • Vinod Kumar Arora v. Surjit Kaur (pleadings form foundation; new case cannot be propounded); • Kondaviti Francis v. M. Ludramma (parties cannot travel beyond pleadings). Income Tax Act — Non-disclosure of loan amount in returns — Effect on civil enforceability Failure of plaintiff to reflect transaction in income tax returns does not extinguish lender’s civil right. May attract departmental penal consequences but cannot render the transaction void or irrecoverable. Civil remedy can be stifled only by statutory provision, not judicial innovation.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — S.118 — Presumption as to consideration — Rebuttal — Burden of proof — Defendant pleading forgery — Failure to rebut — Effect

Plaintiff established execution of suit promissory note (Ex.A1) through P.Ws.1 and 2. Attestor P.W.2 supported execution. Defendant (D.W.1) denied signature and alleged forgery but did not take steps to send document to handwriting expert. Trial Court compared defendant’s signatures on deposition, vakalat etc., and found they ‘tallied’. Defendant failed to establish any material alteration. No evidence produced to discredit P.Ws.1 and 2. Plaintiff and witness had no reason to fabricate the document. Defendant failed even to rebut by preponderance of probabilities. Held, presumption under S.118 is statutory; unless rebutted, consideration must be presumed to have passed.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S.96 — First appeal — Scope — Findings of Trial Court — When not interfered with

Trial Court decreed the suit based on consistent oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and comparison of signatures under S.73 Evidence Act. Appellate Court found no justifiable basis to arrive at a different view. Findings of Trial Court correct; no interference warranted.

Evidence Act, 1872 — S.73 — Comparison of signature by Court — When permissible

Trial Court compared disputed signature on Ex.A1 with admitted signatures on deposition, vakalat etc. Held permissible. Defendant’s allegation of forgery unsupported by any scientific test; no steps taken to refer document to handwriting expert.

Pleadings — Parties bound by pleadings — Departure impermissible — Pleas not taken in written statement cannot be raised

Defendant raised contentions regarding (a) plaintiff’s financial capacity, (b) jurisdiction of Court, and (c) alleged material alteration, without having pleaded them in the written statement. Trial Court rightly rejected these contentions. Supported by precedents:
• Duggineni Seshagiri Rao v. Kothapalli Venkateswara Rao (plaintiff’s financial capacity cannot be a ground when not pleaded);
• Vinod Kumar Arora v. Surjit Kaur (pleadings form foundation; new case cannot be propounded);
• Kondaviti Francis v. M. Ludramma (parties cannot travel beyond pleadings).

Income Tax Act — Non-disclosure of loan amount in returns — Effect on civil enforceability

Failure of plaintiff to reflect transaction in income tax returns does not extinguish lender’s civil right. May attract departmental penal consequences but cannot render the transaction void or irrecoverable. Civil remedy can be stifled only by statutory provision, not judicial innovation.

Presumption under Negotiable Instruments Act — When disappears — Effect of both parties adducing evidence

Court reiterated principles from G. Vasu v. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri (Full Bench):
If defendant shows by direct, circumstantial or other legal presumptions that consideration is improbable or doubtful, evidential burden shifts back to plaintiff and the presumption under S.118 disappears.
In present case, defendant adduced no such evidence; presumption remained intact.

Suit based on promissory note — Execution proved — Consideration established — Decree justified

Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 held consistent and reliable. No motive attributed to P.W.2; no enmity shown. Defendant failed to rebut presumption under S.118 N.I. Act. Trial Court justified in holding execution and receipt of consideration proved.

RESULT

Appeal dismissed with costs.
Decree and Judgment of Trial Court (O.S. No.26/2006 dated 20-07-2015) upheld.
Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.