KURIACHAN Vs. KRISHNA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff was non suited at the lower appellate stage. His suit was for recovery of money. He is issued two cheques Exts. A1 and A2. The contention of the defendant that those were not supported by consideration was found in favour of the defendant by the lower appellate court. Therefore this second appeal mainly raising a question of law with regard to the presumption available in S.118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, with regard to consideration of a negotiable instrument.

(2.) IT is contended by the appellant that the defendant had admitted issuance of cheques Exts. A1 and A2. When there is such admission, the presumption available under S.118(a) with respect to consideration shall follow and the plaintiff is not cast upon with further burden to prove anything more. Whether there was any transaction between the parties was irrelevant in the light of such statutory presumption available. Therefore, the reason stated by the lower appellate court in Para.9 of its judgment to reverse the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was totally Irrelevant and baseless. Therefore, the decree of the Trial Court has to be restored, setting aside that of the lower appellate court, the appellant contends. The statutory presumption in respect of the consideration attached to Exts. A1 and A2, the cheques admittedly drawn by the defendant, in terms of S.118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act shall necessarily be presumed in favour of the plaintiff - appellant to decree the suit.

(3.) IT is contended by the respondent that he had specifically denied the consideration in support of Exts. A1 and A2. He had given those cheques to help the plaintiff in his business. The cheques were drawn on 15-6-1983 and 30-6-1983 by the defendant. As PW 1 the plaintiff had deposed that cheques were issued in return towards the earlier loan advanced to the defendant. As RW .1 he had specifically mentioned during cross examination that, (It was on 28th March 1983 that a loan of Rs. 10,000/- was given to the defendant.) It is in evidence that the same is the date of Ext. B3, a document executed by the defendant in favour of the son of the plaintiff. It is also in evidence that the defendant had executed Ext. B2 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 26-3-1983. The payment of consideration for assignment effected in terms of such documents, to the defendant had been paid by the plaintiff himself. This was admitted by him again during his cross examination and he said that, (I had purchased a plot in Thripunithura during March, 1983 from the defendant. That was as per documents executed in an interval of three days. That was my recollection ..... Purchases were for Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 43,000/- I sold those properties later.)