Kapil Kumar vs. Raj Kumar
Background
Kapil Kumar (plaintiff) sued Raj Kumar (defendant) to recover Rs. 1,36,550, claiming the defendant had borrowed Rs. 1 lakh from him in 2007 and executed a promissory note and receipt. The defendant denied taking any loan from the plaintiff, claiming the money transaction was actually with the plaintiff's father, who he said he had already repaid. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court believed the plaintiff's evidence and decreed the suit in his favour. The High Court, in a second appeal, reversed this solely because the attesting witness to the promissory note had not been examined, and ruled for the defendant.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in disturbing concurrent findings of fact made by two lower courts, since a second appeal under Section 100 CPC can only be entertained on a genuine substantial question of law, not merely on a differing view of evidence. On the merits, the Court found that the plaintiff had proved both the defendant's signature (via a handwriting expert) and execution of the note (via the deed writer's testimony, in which the defendant himself admitted receiving the money), and that Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act presumes consideration for a promissory note unless rebutted, which the defendant failed to do. The Court therefore restored the Trial Court's decree in the plaintiff's favour.
Lesson Learnt
A promissory note carries a legal presumption that consideration (money) was actually paid, and it is the borrower's burden to rebut that presumption with evidence; courts hearing second appeals cannot overturn matching factual findings of two lower courts simply by re-weighing evidence, only on a genuine question of law.