Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. ISSUES NO. 2 & 3:

The onus to prove these issues was fixed upon the plaintiff. I have already given my finding on issue no. 1 that the plaintiff advanced the loan of Rs. 1 lac to the defendant against a pronote Ex. PW1/1 which is bearing the signature of the defendant. The pro note is a negotiable instrument and the presumption of 118 (a) and 139 of NI Act is in favour of the plaintiff that the same was executed against a consideration. The presumption was to be rebutted by the defendant, but the defendant has not rebutted the presumption and has frequently changed his defence. DW1 has specifically deposed that she received the notice for demanding the amount of pro note, but she did not reply and the copy of the notice Ex. DW1/B is also admitted by her. It is further admitted that one cheating case is pending against her sons regarding the theft of promissory note of Rs. 4 lacs prior to the marriage of her daughter and spent amount in the marriage was Rs. 4,000/­ to Rs. 5,000/­. It is further admitted that he has not filed any complaint with the police regarding the forgery of signature on the promissory note. DW2 and 3 have deposed against each other and many material contradictions have arisen in the testimonies of both the witnesses, which I have already pointed out while giving the finding on issue no. 1. Ex. PW1/1 was executed against the loan amount which was advanced to the defendant and the defendant has failed to prove on record that the promissory note was got signed by plaintiff from the defendant under any pressure or misrepresentation and the same has been executed on the blank paper. Rather, signing on the blank paper has no defence at all. Further, the conduct of the defendant clearly suggest that the defendant did not bother to take any action against the plaintiff despite knowing all the facts about the promissory note as well as mark A. Document Mark A was also written by her and the story of DW2 and 3 is beyond imagination. A person of such a caliber of a Judge would do such a petty thing that she would use a minor children to forge the document for such a petty amount and even in the presence of four ­ five persons. The story of the DW2 was not supported by the story of DW3 as the version of DW3 is entire based on hearsay. As such, the defendant borrowed the amount and executed the document Ex. PW1/1 and acknowledged the amount by the way of Mark A. PW2 was the witnesses of the loan amount and execution of promissory note which bears the signature of the defendant at point B. PW2 used to be the attorney of the defendant and was a person of confidence of the defendant who even brought up the daughter of the defendant and also got solemnized the marriage of the daughter of the defendant. PW2 has specifically proved the signature of defendant at point C on mark A and the amount has not been repaid by her. As such, the plaintiff has proved that the plaintiff advanced the sum of Rs. 1Lac for the marriage of the daughter of the defendant against the promissory note Ex. PW1/1, but the defendant has failed to make the payment. As such, the plaintiff has discharged the onus to prove this issue and issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.