Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Abstract

1. Because of the presumptions (under the NI Act), in cheque-bounce-cases, a complainant need not adduce positive evidence on consideration and debt or other liability‘. 2. As regards the Standard of ‘rebuttal evidence’ on presumption, there is an apparent conflict, as to what is needed –                 “Cogent Evidence” (as observed in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar,                 2019-4 SCC 197 – Two Judge Bench)                  or                 “Preponderance of Probabilities” (Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, 3-Judge Bench,                 2010-11 SCC 441, and other decisions). 3. The apparent conflict is resolved in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari, 2022-7 SCR 72 (DY Chandrachud, A S Bopanna, JJ.). It is pointed out –                 (1). Three-Judge Bench decision in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan holds the field.                 (2). It is held in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan – ‘it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of “Preponderance of Probabilities”.  Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution has to fail if it does not discharge the shifted onus.  4. It is pitiful that several High Courts in India misapply the law in this matter without giving due notice to the well-reasoned analysis in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari, 2022-7 SCR 72

Part I

Presumption Under Sec. 138, NI Act: for Consideration and Debt or other liability

A complainant in a Sec. 138, NI Act (cheque-bounce) case need not adduce positive evidence on consideration and debt or other liability, if signature in the cheque is proved or admitted.

• Because, presumptions under Sec. 118 and 139 of the Act can be invoked.
  • Presumption under Sec. 118 lays down – cheque was drawn for consideration.
  • Presumption under Sec. 139 lays down – holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of debt or other liability (that needed to attract Sec. 138 proceedings).

Presumption is not in itself evidence

A presumption only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists, and it is not in itself evidence (Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513; Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa – 2019(5) SCC 418).

Rebuttal: Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities

The required evidence or Standard of Proof for the ‘rebuttal of presumption’ is –

• Preponderance of Probabilities 
  • See: Triyambak S.  Hegde v. Sripad, 2022-1 SCC 742;
  • Anss Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth, (2020) 15 SCC 348).

Rebuttal: Standard of Proof – Probable Defence’ which ‘Creates Doubts‘

The required evidence or Standard of Proof (for rebuttal of a factual presumption) can be –

• ‘Probable Defence’ which ‘Creates Doubts‘ about the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
  • Rangappa v. Sree Mohan, 2010(11) SCC 441;
  • M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala 2006-6 SCC 39;
  • Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35)

Part II

Presumption under S. 118(a) – Rebutted by Evidence as to Lack of Consideration

The presumption under Sec. 118 arises only if the signature in the cheque is proved or admitted. It can be rebutted by evidence as to

• (i) lack of consideration or
• (ii) improper execution.

Conflict on Nature of Evidence Required to Rebut the Presumption

The Conflict is between “Cogent Evidence” and “Preponderance of Probabilities”.

• The First stricter view (on Cogent Evidence) is taken in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, 2019-4 SCC 197.
• But the weight of authorities is in favour of the second view (on Preponderance of Probabilities). The following are the leading decisions-
  • Rajaram v.  Maruthachalam, AIR 2023 SC 471;
  • Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari, 2022-7 SCR 72;
  • Triyambak S.  Hegde v. Sripad, 2022-1 SCC 742;
  • Anss Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth, (2020) 15 SCC 348).
  • Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa – 2019(5) SCC 418
  • K. Subramani v. K. Damodara Naidu, 2015 -1 SCC 99.
  • Vijay v. Laxman, (2013) 3 SCC 86;
  • Rangappa v. Sree Mohan, 2010(11) SCC 441 (Three Judge Bench);
  • M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala 2006-6 SCC 39;
  • Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16;
  • Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35);
  • Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808.

Part III

Rebuttal need not be positively proved to be true

Rebuttal need not be conclusively established or positively proved to be true (Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808; Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa – 2019(5) SCC 418).

• It need be reasonably probable 
  • See: Rajaram v.  Maruthachalam, AIR 2023 SC 471;
  • Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa – 2019(5) SCC 418
  • Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16;
  • Vijay v. Laxman, (2013) 3 SCC 86

Rebuttal can be by invoking another Presumption

• Not necessary for the accused to rebut (consideration) by direct evidence
  • M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala 2006(6) SCC 39, SB Sinha, J.).
  • See: Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal,  1999-3 SCC 35;
• Rebuttal (of presumption) can be by invoking another presumption
  • Kundanlal v. Custodian Evacuee property, AIR 1961 SC 1316) Referred to in: Priyamvada K. v. M.  Rahufina, 2024-1 KerHC 245.
• It can be the circumstances relied upon by the complainant (M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala 2006-6 SCC 39).
• On such a ‘shifting’, the source of money and financial capacity of complainant to make the loan can be a point for consideration, and the complainant may have to produce bank-statement to show the alleged loan-payment, or his financial capacity.
  • See: Rajaram v.  Maruthachalam, AIR 2023 SC 471;
  • Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, 2019-5 SCC 418).
  • K. Subramani v. K. Damodara Naidu, 2015 -1 SCC 99.

The Respondent has to Rebut the Presumption with “Cogent Evidence“

Sec. 118 says about presumption of consideration in a Negotiable Instrument (including cheque). Effect of administering this presumption in Sec. 138 is considered in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, 2019-4 SCC 197. It is held –

• In view of Sec. 118, if signature in a Cheque is admitted by the accused –
  • Complainant has no burden to prove the loan or other liability.
  • Immaterial – who filled the cheque (complainant can fill the cheque, under Sec. 20, NI Act)
  • Reverse onus theory applies.
  • Onus/burden is on respondent – to show cheque was issued not in discharge of debt.
• “Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.”
• (This view is reiterated (obiter) by a three-Judge Bench in Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian, 2021-5 SCC 283)

Presumption u/S. 118(a) – Initial onus only to show Consideration Doubtful

Our Apex Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35 (V.N. Khare, R.P. Sethi, JJ.), laid down the law as to presumption under Section 118(a) as under:

• “12. Upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non- existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his favour. The court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt.”
• (Quoted in: Maitreya Doshi v. Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd., AIR 2022 SC 4595;
• K. S.  Ranganatha v. Vittal Shetty, 2022-1 Crimes(SC) 454; 2021-12 JT 165;
• K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surendran (2008) 1 SCC 258;
• Rev.  Mother Marykutty v. Reni C.  Kottaram, 2013-1 SCC 327;
• Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm, AIR 2008 SC 2898; 2008-7 SCC 655;
• Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325; 2008-4 SCC 54)

Rebuttal of Presumption Explained by SB Sinha, J.

In M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, 2006(6) SCC 39, SB Sinha, J., in His Lordship’s stupendous characteristic style explained the legal position as to the ‘proof’ of ‘presumption’, and ‘probable defence‘, as under:

• “29. In terms of Section 4 of the Evidence Act whenever it is provided by the Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. The words ‘proved’ and ‘disproved’ have been defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act (the interpretation clause) to mean: –
  • “Proved”:  A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
  • “Disproved”: A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.”
• 30. Applying the said definitions of ‘proved’ or ‘disproved’ to principle behind Section 118(a) of the Act, the Court shall presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless and until after considering the matter before it, it either believes that the consideration does not exist or considers the non-existence of the consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that the consideration does not exist. For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence. Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon.”

After quoting aforesaid passage from Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35, it was continued in M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, as under:

• “32. This Court, therefore, clearly opined that it is not necessary for the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence.
• 33. The standard of proof evidently is  Pre-ponderance of probabilities. Inference of Pre-ponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials on records but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.
• 34. Presumption drawn under a statute has only an evidentiary value. Presumptions are raised in terms of the Evidence Act. Presumption drawn in respect of one fact may be an evidence even for the purpose of drawing presumption under another.”

Rebuttal of Presumption- Burden Shifts; Not “Haunt the accused any longer“

On rebuttal of presumption, the burden shifts to the complainant, and thereafter and the burden does not “haunt the accused any longer” (Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, AIR 2023 SC 5018;   2023-10 SCC 148).

Rebuttal: Standard of Proof – Probable defence which Creates Doubts

In Rangappa v. Sree Mohan, 2010(11) SCC 441 (CJI, K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal, JJ.), a case related to dishonour of cheque under Sec. 138,  it is observed that preponderance of probable defence, if sufficient to Creates Doubts, may shift the burden. It is held in this decision as under:

• “28   In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of ‘preponderance of probabilities’. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own.“

Para 28 of Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, 2010-11 SCC 441, is quoted in following decisions of our Apex Court –

• Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari, 2022-7 SCR 72 (Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, A S Bopanna, JJ.)
• Anss Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth, (2020) 15 SCC 348 (Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, JJ.)
• Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa – 2019(5) SCC 418, AIR 2019 SC 1983 (Ashok Bhushan, K.M. Joseph, JJ.)
• Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2019 SC 1876; 2019-18 SCC 106 (Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.)

In Anss Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth, (2020) 15 SCC 348, following Rangappa v. Sri Mohanit (supra), it is held as under:

• “The standard of proof for rebuttal of the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is guided by a preponderance of probabilities.”

Rebuttal Need Not be Conclusively Established – Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa

Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, 2019(5) SCC 418 (Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, JJ.), , is a classic decision on ‘rebuttal of presumption’. In this decision our Apex Court relied on the following earlier decisions to formulate the final propositions.

(i). Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808. A Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court laid down as under:

• “23 ……. One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. There are certain cases in which statutory presumptions arise regarding the guilt of the accused, but the burden even in those cases is upon the prosecution to prove the existence of facts which have to be present before the presumption can be drawn. Once those facts are shown by the prosecution to exist, the Court can raise the statutory presumption and it would, in such an event, be for the accused to rebut the presumption. The onus even in such cases upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. If some material is brought on the record consistent with the innocence of the accused which may reasonably be true, even though it is not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquittal.”

(ii). Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Co. v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35, considered Sec. 118(a) of the NI Act. Our Apex Court held as under –

• Once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Sec. 118(a) as to consideration would arise; and that such a presumption can be rebutted by raising a probable defence.
• In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled to rely upon the evidence led by the plaintiff.
• The court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt.
• The bare denial does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for shifting the onus to the plaintiff.
• To disprove the presumption, the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon consideration of which the court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not exist.

(iii). M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39 (Justice S.B. Sinha)

• Sections 118(a), 138 and 139 of the NI Act was considered in this decision. Referring Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1, it was pointed out that the expression ‘shall presume’ cannot be synonymous with ‘conclusive proof’; and that for rebutting the presumption under Sec. 118(a), a probable defence alone is needed.
• Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon.
• It is analysed on the principle (as to the definition, “proved”, in Sec. 3 Evidence Act) whether the court believes that the consideration does not exist or considers the non-existence of the consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that the consideration does not exist.
• The standard of proof evidently is preponderance of probabilities.
• Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only by direct evidence or from the materials on record; but it can also be by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.

(iv). Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54.

• An accused for discharging the burden need not examine himself.
• He can rely on the materials already brought on record. And, also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.
• An accused has a constitutional right to maintain silence.
• Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different.
• Prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is “preponderance of probabilities“.

(v). Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513

• Under Sec. 138 of the NI Act, as soon as the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the instrument was executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 help him shift the burden on the accused.
• A presumption is not in itself evidence, but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists.
• The phrase “until the contrary is proved” in Section 118 and use of the words “unless the contrary is proved” in Section 139 of the Act read with definitions of “may presume” and “shall presume” as given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, makes it clear that presumptions to be raised under both the provisions are rebuttable.
• When a presumption is rebuttable, it only points out that the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence, on the fact presumed.
• And when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed, the purpose of the presumption is over.
• The court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated.
• But, the bare denial of consideration and debt, apparently would not serve the purpose. Something which is probable has to be brought on record to shift  the burden to the complainant.
• The accused should bring facts and circumstances, which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist.

(vi) Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 (Three-Judge Bench)

• It was a case under Sec. 138 and 139 where the accused had admitted signatures on the cheque.
• It gives only an initial presumption which favours the complainant.
• This Court held that the presumption as to a legally enforceable debt or liability could be rebutted and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence. It is an example of ‘reverse onus’.
• The defendant-accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof.
• The accused need not adduce evidence of his/her own.

Principles Formulated in Basalingappa

Finally, in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, 2019(5) SCC 418, the Court summarised the principles as under:

• “23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in following manner:-
• .(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
• (ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
• (iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
• (iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden,
• (v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.”

It is for the Accused to rebut the Presumptions under S. 139

In Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 77, it is held that the Certified copy of a document issued by a Bank is itself admissible under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 without any formal proof thereof. Hence, in an appropriate case, the certified copy of the specimen signature maintained by the Bank can be procured with a request to the Court to compare the same with the signature appearing on the cheque by exercising powers under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Further, it is held, it is for the accused to rebut such presumptions by leading appropriate defence evidence and the Court cannot be expected to assist the accused to collect evidence on his behalf.

Part IV

Standard of Proof for Rebutting Presumption in Criminal Law

In Rajaram v.  Maruthachalam, AIR 2023 SC 471 (B.R. Gavai, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.), it is held as under:

• “24. It can thus be seen that in the facts of the said case, this Court found that the defence raised by the appellants/accused did not inspire confidence or meet the standard of ‘preponderance of probability’.
• 25. In the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the defence raised by the appellant satisfies the standard of ‘preponderance of probability’.”

Rajaram v.  Maruthachalam, AIR 2023 SC 471, stands as an authority that emphasises the law that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption in criminal law (as regards cheque-bounce cases also) is that of ‘benefit of doubt‘ and ‘preponderance of probabilities‘. It is held as under:

• “After taking into consideration the defence witnesses and the attending circumstances, the learned Trial Court found that the defence was a possible defence and as such, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.“

Proposition on cogent evidence to rebut the presumption is found not applicable in this case. It was observed as under:

• “26. Insofar as the reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (AIR 2019 SC 1876; 2019-18 SCC 106) is concerned, in the said case, the learned Trial Court had acquitted the accused, the High Court, in appeal, reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
• Affirming the order of the High Court, this Court held that merely by denial or merely by creation of doubt, the accused cannot be said to have rebutted the presumption as envisaged under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. This Court held that unless cogent evidence was led on behalf of the accused in defence of his case, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act could not be rebutted. As such, the said judgment also would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.”

Part V

Apparent Conflict between “Cogent Evidence” and “Preponderance of Probabilities“

It is observed in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, 2019-4 SCC 197, Two-Judge Bench decision, as to the ‘rebuttal evidence’ on presumption under Section 139, as under:

• “38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars.”
• “40. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.”
• “42. In the absence of any finding that the cheque in question was not signed by the respondent-accused or not voluntarily made over to the payee and in the absence of any evidence with regard to the circumstances in which a blank signed cheque had been given to the appellant-complainant, it may reasonably be presumed that the cheque was filled in by the appellant-complainant being the payee in the presence of the respondent–accused being the drawer, at his request and/or with his acquiescence. The subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration. There was no change in the amount of the cheque, its date or the name of the payee. The High Court ought not to have acquitted the respondent-accused of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.”
• Note: 1. Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (R. Banumathi, Indira Banerjee, JJ.) , 2019-4 SCC 197, is an odd decision, as regards ‘consideration’.
• 2. On a close reading of this decision, the following emerges:
  • i. The words “towards some payment” cast “some” ‘strong‘ onus on the claimant.
  • ii. The presumption invoked in this matter is not one from NI Act; but from Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
  • iii. The presumption must be one that can be invoked in the circumstances of the case – that is, there must have ‘something’ to take:
    • “it may reasonably be presumed that the cheque was filled in by the appellant-complainant being the payee in the presence of the respondent–accused being the drawer, at his request and/or with his acquiescence“.
• 3. In K. Ramesh v. K. Kothandaraman (B.V. Nagarathna, Augustine George Masih, JJ.), 2024-1 KCCR 693; 2024-1 LawHerald(SC) 475, followed Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, 2019-4 SCC 197, (it appears) without noticing the above two points.
• 4. The view in Bir Singh (on cogent evidence) is reiterated (obiter) by a three-Judge Bench in Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian, 2021-5 SCC 283.
• Read: Presumptions Regarding Consideration in Cheque Cases under the NI Act
• An Inchoate Cheque (Signed Blank Cheque or Incomplete Cheque) Cannot be Enforced Through a Court of Law Invoking Presumptions under the NI Act

It is, no doubt, stands in conflict to the principles formulated in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, 2019(5) SCC 418, and various other cases – which say as to preponderance of probabilities, probable defence, sufficient evidence to Create Doubts, evidence which may be reasonably be true etc.

In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari, 2022-7 SCR 72 (Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, A S Bopanna, JJ.) after quoting the aforesaid portion in para 36 of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, the court observed as under:

• “16. In Anss Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth, (2020) 15 SCC 348 a two Judge Bench of this Court, of which one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud J.) was a part, reiterated the decision of the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 on the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The court held:
  • “12. Section 139 of the Act mandates that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received it, in discharge, in whole or in part, of a debt, or liability. The expression “unless the contrary is proved” indicates that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is rebuttable. Terming this as an example of a “reverse onus clause” the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Rangappa held that in determining whether the presumption has been rebutted, the test of proportionality must guide the determination. The standard of proof for rebuttal of the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is guided by a preponderance of probabilities. This Court held thus:
  • “28. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of “preponderance of probabilities”. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own.”(emphasis supplied)”

The ‘apparent conflict’ stands resolved by Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari. It is pointed out –

• 1. Three-Judge Bench decision in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan holds the field.
• 2. It is held in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan – ‘It is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of “preponderance of probabilities”. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. ‘

It is pity to see that several High Courts in India misapply the law in this matter without giving due notice to the well-reasoned analysis in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari, 2022-7 SCR 72.

Inchoate Stamped Instruments – Sec. 20, NI Act

The complainant can fill in the blank-portion of a signed cheque, by virtue of Sec. 20 NI Act (Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, 2019-4 SCC 197)

Sec. 20, NI Act reads as under:

• “20. Inchoate Stamped Instruments —Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper STAMPED in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in  India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the STAMP. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount:
• Provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.”

Still, the courts in India hold that the complainant can fill in the blank-portion of a signed cheque (though a cheque requires no stamp), by virtue of Sec. 20 NI Act.

See the discussion of law in this regard in the following decisions –

• Raj Kumar v. Ram Krishan, 2016 ACD 689; ILR 2016-3 HP 416;
• S. Gopal v. D. Balachandran, 2008-1 CTC 491;
• C.T. Joseph v. I.V. Philip, AIR 2001 Ker 300;  
• A.R. Dower v. Sohan Lal, AIR 1937 Lah 816.

Read also: An Inchoate Cheque (Signed Blank Cheque or Incomplete Cheque) Cannot be Enforced Through a Court of Law Invoking Presumptions under the NI Act

Financial capacity of the Complainant

• Financial capacity of the complainant can be a point in ‘probable defence’ (Rajaram v.  Maruthachalam, AIR 2023 SC 471).
  • That is, the respondent can also show – complainant had no financial capacity.
• And, the respondent is so poor that the complainant did not have issued large amount by way of loan.
• Or, the complainant inserted the amount to befit or match his income in Bank Account from some source, or withdrawal for some other purpose.

Complainant – May Have to Produce Bank-Statement

In K. Subramani v. K. Damodara Naidu, 2015 (1) SCC 99, it is held that on rebuttal, source of income of complainant may have to be proved by production of bank-statement.

Source of Money and Capacity – Can Be A Point

In Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, 2019(5) SCC 418, it was held that the financial capacity can be a point if questioned; and that it was incumbent on complainant, and he has the burden, to explain his financial capacity.  In K.K. Divakaran v. State of Kerala 2016(4) KLJ 273,  it is found that the believability of source of money of the complainant and his capacity can be a point, on rebuttal of presumption on consideration.

Read Blogs:

• Where to file Cheque Bounce Cases (Jurisdiction of Court – to file NI Act Complaint)?
• Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118 – Even if ‘Signed-Blank-Cheque’, No Burden on Complainant to Prove Consideration
• Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
• “Otherwise Through an Account” in Section 142, NI Act
• Cheque Dishonour Case against a Company, Firm or Society

---

End Notes:

Sec. 118(a) & 139 of the NI Act

Sec. 118(a) Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, reads as follows:

• “118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.—Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:—
• (a) of consideration:—that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;…”

Sec. 138 of the NI Act reads as under:

• 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.—Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years’, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
• Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—
• ·        .(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
• ·        (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for
• ·        the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
• ·        (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt  of the said notice.
• Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “debt of other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

Sec. 139 of the NI Act reads as under:

• “139. Presumption in favour of holder –  It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.”

Legally recoverable debt (presupposed in S. 138) v. “Discharge of debt or liability” (S. 139)

• Sec. 138 requires evidence on “legally enforceable debt“.
• Sec. 139 provides for presumption – holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of debt or other liability.

A question arises on analysis of both these provisions – does Sec. 139 refers to “legally enforceable debt”.

The answer is ‘No’.

In Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde1 reported in [2008 (1) SCALE 421] it is held as under:

• “19. Indisputably, a mandatory presumption is required to be raised in terms of Section 118(b) and Section 139 of the Act. Section 13(1) of the Act defines ‘negotiable instrument’ to mean “a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer”.
• Sec. 138 of the Act has three ingredients, viz.:
  • (i) that there is a legally enforceable debt;
  • (ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes a legally enforceable debt; and
  • (iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds.
• 20. The proviso appended to the said section provides for compliance of legal requirements before a complaint petition can be acted upon by a court of law. Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption in regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability.
• 21. The courts below, as noticed hereinbefore, proceeded on the basis that Section 139 raises a presumption in regard to existence of a debt also. The courts below, in our opinion, committed a serious error in proceeding on the basis that for proving the defence the accused is required to step into the witness box and unless he does so he would not be discharging his burden. Such an approach on the part of the courts, we feel, is not correct.
• 22. An accused for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on records. An accused has a constitutional right to maintain silence. Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different.” (Quoted in Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra, 2009-13 SCC 729 : S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.)

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

---

---

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

• Suit under Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act – Is it a ‘Summary Suit’ under Order XXXVII CPC?
• Is it Mandatory to Lift the Attachment on Dismissal of the Suit? Will the Attachment Orders Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Will Interlocutory Orders and Applications Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Declaration and Injunction
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
• Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a Decree
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Will Findings of a Civil Court Outweigh Findings of a Criminal Court?
• Waiver and Promissory Estoppel

Power of attorney

• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be attracted
• Should a Power of Attorney for Sale must have been Registered –
• Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.

Title, ownership and Possession

• Section 27, Limitation Act Gives-Rise to a Substantive Right so as to Seek Declaration and Recovery
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
• Title and Ownership in Indian Law
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• 22nd Law Commission  Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?
• Grant in Law

Adverse Possession

• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse Possession

Principles and Procedure

• Doctrines on Ultra Vires, Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Nullification of Mandamus, and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross-Examination by the Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
• Freehold Property in Law
• What is Patta or Pattayam?
• Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent Interest
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in Kerala
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• ‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution – By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in KeralaLaw on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
• Grant in Law

Evidence Act – General

• Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Evidence in Court – General Principles
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• What is Collateral Purpose?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross Examination by the Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• What is Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery or Discovery?
• How ‘Discovery’ under Section 27, Evidence Act, Proved?
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act

Sec. 65B

• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate forms
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?

Law on Documents

• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• What is Collateral Purpose?
• No Application Needed for Filing or Admitting Copy
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Registering Deeds
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited

Interpretation

• Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
• Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
• Interpretation of Wills
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence

Contract Act

• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance

Law on Damages

• Law on Damages
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Law on Damages in Defamation Cases
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits

Easement

• Easement Simplified
• What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• Will Easement of Necessity Ripen into a Prescriptive Easement?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by Prescription?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Easement of Necessity and Prescriptive Easement are Mutually Destructive; But, Easement of Necessity and Implied Grant Can be Claimed Alternatively
• Can Easement of Necessity and of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
• “Implied Grant” in Law of Easements
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
• Grant in Law

Stamp Act & Registration

• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Registering Deeds
• Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before Collector
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS 
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration

Will

• Witnesses to the Will Need Not See the Execution of the Will
• Interpretation of Wills
• Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid Will
• When Execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side, Should it be ‘Proved’?

Arbitration

• Seesaw of Supreme Court in NN Global Mercantile v. Indo Unique Flame
• N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ground Realities of Indian Situation
• What are Non-Arbitrable Disputes? When a Dispute is Not Referred to Arbitration in spite of Arbitration Clause
• Termination or Nullity of Contract Will Not Cease Efficacy of the Arbitration Clause
• No Valid Arbitration Agreement ‘Exists’ – Can Arbitration Clause be Invoked?

Divorce/Marriage

• Presumption of Valid Marriage – If lived together for Long Spell
• Validity of Foreign Divorce Decrees in India
• Is ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a Valid Ground for Divorce in India?
• Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian Domicile

Negotiable Instruments Act

• Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118
• Even if ‘Signed-Blank-Cheque’, No Burden on Complainant to Prove Consideration; Rebuttal can be by a Probable Defence
• “Otherwise Through an Account” in Section 142, NI Act
• Where to file Cheque Bounce Cases (Jurisdiction of Court – to file NI Act Complaint)?
• Cheque Dishonour Case against a Company, Firm or Society
• What is ‘Cognizance’ in Law

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Doctrines on Ultra Vires and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment, in ED Director’s Tenure Extension Case (Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India)
• Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India – Mandamus (Given in a Case) Cannot be Annulled by Changing the Law
• Art. 370 – Turns the Constitution on Its Head

Religious issues

• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

• General
  • General Features
  • Bye Laws Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Juristic Personality
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Classification of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
  • Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920: Provisions as regards opinion, advice or direction of the Court.
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions