Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that the very execution of Ex.A.1 has not been properly proved and even P.W.2 has fumbled in the witness box and he has shown himself a lier.

12. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsels at the bar and perused the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and the impugned judgments of the Courts below and the case records.

13. Actually the second appeal arose out of a simple suit on a promissory note. The specific case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the appellant/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him on 19.02.2002 and executed the suit promissory note-Ex.A.1. However, the appellant/defendant denied his execution of the promissory note. He alleged that it is a rank forgery.

19. In the face of the available evidence on record, the execution of the promissory note has been established. In such circumstances, necessarily, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arises. In such circumstances, the appellant/defendant ought to have let in rebuttal evidence, but the evidence of D.W.1 alone is not sufficient. Merely, by inserting a one line statement in his written statement denying his signature in promissory note and describing it as a forgery, is not sufficient to thrash down the case of the respondent/plaintiff, when especially positive evidence also has been let in. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered as against the appellant/defendant.