Without Sending Document To Handwriting Expert Or Police Complaint Not Sufficient To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 118 Of The Ni Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

“Forgery Plea Is an Afterthought — Promissory Note Was Duly Executed by Husband and Wife” - In a firm reaffirmation of evidentiary standards under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on April 8, 2025, dismissed a second appeal filed by M. Danial Pratap and his wife, challenging concurrent findings of two courts below, which had decreed a recovery suit for ₹5,99,660 in favour of the lender based on a promissory note dated 20-01-2012.
Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, while dismissing the appeal at the admission stage in Second Appeal No. 308 of 2022, held that no substantial question of law arose and that both the trial and appellate courts had rightly appreciated the facts, evidence, and the law.
“The contention of appellants is that the promissory note is a forged and fabricated document. But there is no evidence to support this plea. No handwriting expert was engaged. No police complaint was filed. Even the written statement lacks any plea of material alteration,” the Court noted.
“Cheque Bounced, 138 NI Act Case Filed — No Denial of Issuance, No Defence of Enmity with Attesting Witness”: Court Finds Plea of Forgery Unbelievable
The plaintiff, R. Venkat Rao, had claimed that the defendants had jointly borrowed ₹3.5 lakh for family needs and executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay with interest at 24% per annum. When they defaulted, he alleged that the first defendant issued a cheque for ₹3 lakh, which bounced with the remark “Funds Insufficient.” A criminal case under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act was also filed and was pending.
Rejecting the defendants’ version that the promissory note was forged and that they never borrowed any money, the Court pointed out that the attesting witness to the note was examined as P.W.2 and no animosity was alleged against him.
“The plaintiff discharged his burden by examining the sole attestor to Ex.A-1 as P.W.2… The defendants did not even attempt to discredit him in cross-examination or suggest any motive for false deposition,” the Court held.
“Forgery Allegation Raised for the First Time in Second Appeal — No Case for Substantial Question of Law”: High Court Cites Apex Court Precedents
Refusing to entertain the appellants’ claim that the name on the promissory note was materially altered, the Court noted that no such issue was pleaded before the trial court or the first appellate court. The Court observed:
“Mere appreciation of facts, documentary evidence and contents of documents cannot be held to raise a substantial question of law… The defendants did not plead material alteration or seek expert opinion. Hence, no second appeal can lie under Section 100 CPC.”
Citing Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi (2007) 8 SCC 155, the Court reminded that factual findings based on evidence cannot be reopened in second appeal unless a pure legal question arises.

“Presumption Under Section 118 NI Act Stands — Consideration Was Duly Passed and Proven”: Court Rejects Defence of Lack of Consideration
Referring to the leading Full Bench judgment in G. Vasu v. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri, the Court reiterated that while the presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act is rebuttable, mere denial is insufficient — the defendant must disprove consideration by preponderance of probabilities, which was not done here.
“In fact, the defendants failed to prove the contention regarding the non-payment of consideration by leading cogent evidence. Their defence is vague and unsupported by evidence,” the Court noted.
It further relied on Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal and held that the sanctity of negotiable instruments must be preserved in commerce, and such casual defences cannot erode legal presumptions.
“This Was a Proper Decree Based on Cogent Evidence — No Interference Warranted”: AP HC Closes the Litigation
The Court dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court dated 24-08-2017 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 08-03-2022, ruling: “For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit and the first appellate Judge confirmed it. No interference is called for.”

Date of Decision: April 8, 2025