Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Promissory note forgery in M.Kokila vs A.Dhanalakshmi on 30 January, 2014Matching Fragments
3. The defendant disputed the claim on the ground that;
a)Promissory Note is a rank forgery.
b)Plaintiff has no wherewithal to lend such a huge amount.
c)Defendant had no necessity to buy such huge amount.
4. Before the trial court, plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the attesting witness to the Pro Note has been examined as PW2. Ex.A1-Promissory Note was the only document produced and the DW1 was the only witness examined.
5. The trial court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.1,83,750/- with costs and subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the original sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The trial court gave a finding that the execution of promissory note has been proved through the evidence of PW2, the attesting witness. The trial court raised presumption available under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act and held that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration.