AIR 2020 (NOC) 663 (KAR.) ::2020 ACD 397 (KAR) ::2020 (1) AKR 733 ::AIROnline 2019 Kar 1069 ::2020 (3) ICC 575

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): H. B. Prabhakara Sastry , J

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) S. 4 — Pronote — Proof — Examination of witness — Not mandatory on part of payee, to examine any witness to such instrument — Only in case of suspicion or doubt or where alleged executant of promissory note is dead and his legal representatives dispute and deny execution of promissory notes — It is necessary to examine witnesses. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss. 61, 67. (Para 17)

(B) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) S. 4 — Pronote — Proof — Plea of plaintiff that defendant and her husband jointly executed Promissory Notes, for availing loan from him — Witnesses present while execution of Promissory Note, not examined — Contradictory statements of plaintiff, as regards parties executing Promissory Notes rendering alleged loan transaction doubtful — Execution of Promissory note, not proved. (Para 12,15,16)

(C) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) S. 4, 118(g), 138, 139 — Pronote and cheque — Presumption as to legally enforceable debt — Plea of plaintiff that defendant and her husband jointly executed Promissory Notes and availed loan from him — Witness not identifying signatures on pronotes and cheques as that of husband of defendant — Witness also denying execution of both the documents in his presence — Plaintiff unable to prove that cheques and promissory note were executed by husband of defendant — Benefit of presumption as to enforceable debt, not available to plaintiff. (Para 19,22)