Law: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Section: XXVI,118

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 79,129

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: XXXVII

(a)    Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--- ----S. 118---Qanun-e-Shahdat (10 of 1984), Art. 129---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII---Execution of negotiable instrument---Presumption attached to negotiable instrument---Scope---Shifting of burden of proof back on the plaintiff on rebuttal---Scope---Lending of money as a natural human conduct /relation in a society---Suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff---Validity---In a suit for recovery on the basis of a negotiable instrument, there are certain presumptions attached to the same in terms of S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( the Act 1881 ), as to the passing of consideration, date, time, etc---Such presumptions have been created by law, however, the same are rebuttable and it is for the defendant to raise a defence to rebut the statutory presumptions---The defendant in the suit, by setting up a probable defence, can refute the said legal presumption as regards the date and time of execution as also the consideration; the same can be established by evidence or circumstances of the case, which can be culled out from the mouth of the plaintiff and his witnesses or even from such other attending circumstances through which the Court can be shown that the passing of consideration is improbable, doubtful or illegal, or that the circumstances are such that a reasonable prudent man would disbelieve lawful issuance/execution of the instrument--Pertinently, the lending of money is part of human relation and of natural human conduct in a society, therefore, the same needs to be seen and viewed through the prism of natural human conduct---Statutory presumptions like the one attached to the negotiable instrument are based upon the natural and/or established human conduct---Given the diversification and inherent variability of human conduct, such presumptions have been made rebuttable---High / Appellate Court has to keep in sight the fact that there is an inextricable interplay of presumptions and burden of proof as existence of presumption shifts the burden of proof on the other side---The presumptions under S. 118 of the Act, 1881 merely shift the burden on the defendant to…