Madras High Court· 22 July 2026

Where the execution of a cheque is denied, on whom does the burden lie and how is it discharged?

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

Entirely on the plaintiff. Where the defendants specifically deny the signatures, the plaintiff must prove that the instrument was executed by them, and a failure to have it referred for the opinion of a handwriting expert has fatal consequences. A court may compare the signatures itself, but as a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety it should not normally take that responsibility upon itself and should leave the matter to the wisdom of the experts where there is the slightest doubt.

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 17When such a categorical plea had been taken in the written statement, the burden lay entirely on the plaintiff to prove that the suit cheques were actually executed by the defendants. Unfortunately, the plaintiff did not take any step to have the suit cheques Exs.A1 and A2 referred for the opinion of a handwriting expert. No doubt, under Section 73 of the Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 72 of BSA) empowers the Court to undertake a comparison on its own. But there are quite a few decisions which caution the court from undertaking such an exercise. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1997 SC 3255 (Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka) held that as a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of the experts. In the case on hand, even though the plaintiff did not have the suit cheques referred for handwriting expert’s opinion, the Trial Judge on his own compared the disputed signatures found in the suit cheques with the admitted signatures of the third defendant available in Ex.B5. The learned Judge came to a categorical finding that the disputed signatures are not that of the third defendant.

Paragraph 18A learned Judge of this Court in SA No.547 of 2010 (Perumal v. Dhanalakshmi Ammal) vide order dated 13.10.2020 held that when the execution of signature itself is disputed, the plaintiff should have taken steps to compare the signature in the suit instrument with any other admitted contemporaneous signature of the defendant through an scientific expert. Failure to do so would have fatal consequences for the plaintiff. In the case on hand, the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden cast on him.

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?Does the presumption under s.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 dispense with proof that the instrument was executed?Where a hand loan is denied, must the lender prove that he had the money to lend?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections