Summary
The plaintiff sued to recover a Rs 1 lakh loan evidenced by a promissory note and receipt. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the defendant had executed the pro-note and decreed the suit. In second appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed them only because the attesting witness had not been examined. The Supreme Court restored the decree. Whether execution was proved is a question of fact, not a substantial question of law, so non-perverse concurrent findings could not be disturbed under Section 100 CPC. On the merits, a handwriting expert proved the defendant's signature, and the deed writer proved execution and the defendant's admission that he received the money. Not examining the attesting witness was therefore immaterial, and the unrebutted presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act applied.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, in second appeal under Section 100 CPC, could reverse concurrent findings on execution of a promissory note on the ground that the attesting witness was not examined.
Provisions considered
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Whether the plaintiff proved execution of the pro-note was a question of fact, not a substantial question of law, so non-perverse concurrent findings could not be interfered with. (¶ 5.1)
- Section 118(a), Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Consideration for a negotiable instrument is presumed; the defendant led no evidence to rebut it. (¶ 6.1)
Held
- Concurrent findings of fact on execution of a pro-note, recorded on appreciation of evidence and not shown to be perverse, cannot be upset in second appeal; the question decided by the High Court was not a substantial question of law. (¶ 5.1)
- Where the defendant's signature is proved by a handwriting expert, execution by the deed writer, and the defendant admitted receiving the money, non-examination of the attesting witness cannot be held against the plaintiff. (¶¶ 6, 6.1)
- The presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act applied because the defendant led no rebuttal evidence. (¶ 6.1)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment set aside and the trial court's decree, affirmed by the first appellate court, restored; no costs.