Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thereafter, he discharged the amount. It is well settled that in order to establish the discharge, the burden lies on the person who pleads discharge. Ex.B.1 will not prove the discharge as pleaded by the defendant. It is further to be noted that it is the contention of the defendant that the promissory note is a fabricated one. Such a general denial is not sufficient. Having admitted the relationship between the parties and having pleaded discharge, the fabrication and forgery has to be established by the defendant by concrete materials. The lower appellate Court had reversed the finding of the trial Court by holding that as the defendant had pleaded forgery of his signature in the suit promissory note and the plaintiff had failed to discharge his initial burden of proving the execution of http://www.judis.nic.in the suit promissory note by the defendant, reversed the finding of the trial Court. Though, the defendant has pleaded that the suit promissory note has been fabricated and his signature has been forged, he has not taken any steps to prove the same with the aid of the expert opinion. Mere plea that the promissory note has been fabricated will not prove the case of the defendant. Hence, this Court is of the view that the trial Court properly analysed the entire facts and decreed the suit and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant.