PONUGUPATI SUBBA RAO Vs. SIKHAKOLLU PULLA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of a debt on the basis of a pro-note dated 5-5-1992 executed by the defendant-petitioner. THE original pro-note was executed for Rs.2,000.00 and it was agreed that the interest shall be paid at the rate of 24% per annum. THE rate of interest claimed in the suit however was 12 1/2%. It was claimed in the suit that the defendant had borrowed a" sum of Rs.2,000.00 from the plaintiff on 5-5-1992 and a promissory note had been executed. THE defendant in his written statement denied borrowing of any loan from plaintiff and executing the pro-note. It was stated that the plaintiff had fabricated the promissory note with an ante date. THE plaintiff examined himself and a witness. THE plaintiff, according to the judgment, had initially proved that the document had been executed. THE defendant however took a stand that he had not put any signatures on the pro-note and the signature was forged. THE learned Judge relied on a judgment of this Court being B. Mallamma v. V. T. V. Rangachary, 1997(3) APLJ 39 (SN), whereby it has been laid down that after the initial burden of proving the document is discharged by the plaintiff the onus of proving the document otherwise shifts to the defendant. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lays down the conditions in which the presumptions shall be made. Under Section 118(g) there is a presumption in favour of the plaintiff that lie is the holder in due course unless proved contrary and the presumption shall not survive if it is proved that the document was with the holder by means of offence or fraud or had been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud. In a judgment by the Supreme Court in Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal, 1999 (2) Supreme 187, while interpreting Section 118(a) the Court held that, after the initial burden is discharged by the plaintiff of showing that the document was executed the burden shifts to the defendant. In the present case also the initial burden was discharged by the plaintiff and the burden shifted to the defendant to prove that the document was forged. Since he has not discharged that burden therefore the trial Court was right in decreeing the suit.

(2.) I do not find any merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition is allowed