Does the presumption under s.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 dispense with proof that the instrument was executed?

No. Execution of the cheque cannot be presumed. What the provision permits to be presumed is the passing of consideration, the date of the document and the like, and the presumption can be raised only once due execution of the document has been proved.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s.64 — s.118 — s.139 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 37 — Evidence Act — s.73 — Cheque — Original consideration — Burden of proof — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Cheque — Suit on the original consideration — Held: Stamping is required of a promissory note but not of a cheque, so a drawer cannot say the instrument is the contract and bars a suit on the debt; the payee may sue on the original consideration. (¶13) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s.118 — Execution denied — Burden on the plaintiff — Held further: Where execution of the cheque is denied, the burden lies wholly on the plaintiff to prove it, and failure to seek an expert's opinion is fatal; the presumption arises only once due execution is proved. (¶17, ¶19) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 37 — Execution disputed — Limitation — Held further: A summary suit does not lie where the drawer disputes execution; limitation runs three years from execution where it is admitted, and from the original cause of action where it is disputed and unproved. (¶15) Hand loan — Wherewithal questioned — Onus on the lender — Held further: Where a hand loan is denied and the lender's capacity is questioned, the onus lies on him to prove that he had the wherewithal to advance the sum. Appeal dismissed. (¶20, ¶21, ¶22)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of S.Ravichandran v. M/s.Sri Naga Agencies — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India