LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 22 July 2026

Where a hand loan is denied, must the lender prove that he had the money to lend?

S.Ravichandran v. M/s.Sri Naga Agencies
AS(MD) No. 174 of 2019 · AS(MD) No. 174 of 2019
Coram: Justice G.R.Swaminathan · Justice K.K.Ramakrishnan
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.64 Negotiable Instruments Act,…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Yes. Where the borrower not only denies receipt but questions the lender's financial capacity, the onus lies on the lender to prove before the court that he had the wherewithal to advance the sum claimed. Had the transaction been carried out through banking channels the question of capacity would have paled into insignificance, which is why high-value financial transactions ought to be carried on through instruments or banking channels.

Headnote

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)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 20The defendants had specifically questioned the wherewithal of the plaintiff to advance a huge sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. In the cross examination, pointed questions had been put in this regard. The plaintiff ought to have established that he had the capacity to advance the amount. If the transaction had been done through banking channels, the question of capacity would have paled into insignificance. When the plaintiff claims that it was a hand loan and the defendant not only denies receipt thereof but also questions the financial capacity of the plaintiff, the onus lies on the plaintiff to prove before the court that he had the wherewithal to advance the suit amount.
Paragraph 21The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 793 (The Correspondent, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B.Gunashekar & anr) highlighted the importance of carrying on high-value financial transactions only through instruments or through banking channels. In the case on hand, the plaintiff did not show that cash to which Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) was available with him for advancing it as loan. The plaintiff did not mark his IT returns. On the other hand, the passbook marked on his side Ex.A9 shows that the plaintiff had availed overdraft facility to a tune of Rs.35,00,000/-. In the cross examination, PW1 stated that he sold a property in Sivakasi and got a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards advance, and out of the same, Rs.10,00,000/- was given. But no proof was adduced in this regard. When wherewithal is questioned, the so-called lender is obliged to prove that he had the capacity to lend the money in question. This burden has also not been discharged in the instant case.
Acts & Sections
s.64 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s.118 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s.139 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Order 37 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.73 Evidence Acts.91 Evidence Acts.35 Indian Stamp Act

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.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can the payee of a cheque sue on the original debt without presenting the cheque?Where the execution of a cheque is denied, on whom does the burden lie and how is it discharged?Does the presumption under s.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 dispense with proof that the instrument was executed?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections