1999 (7) TMI 699 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and binding nature of the suit pronotes.
2. Entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the suit amount with subsequent interest and costs.
3. Execution of the suit pronotes by the 2nd defendant as the Manager of the joint family.
4. Execution of the pronotes by the 2nd defendant as the Managing Partner of the 1st defendant firm.
5. Relief to be granted.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Binding Nature of the Suit Pronotes:
The primary issue was whether the two suit pronotes dated 29-8-1986 and 29-8-1987 were true, valid, and binding on the defendants. The trial court found that the defendants executed the pronotes, which was not challenged by the defendants, making the finding final. A presumption arises under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that consideration passed under the pronote unless the executant denied consideration. The plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent regarding the payment of Rs. 3,20,000 to the defendants. Despite the recitals in the pronote, the plaintiff's inconsistent testimony led the court to conclude that no amount was paid under Ex.A21, resulting in the dismissal of the suit for Rs. 4,72,000.

2. Entitlement to Recover the Suit Amount with Subsequent Interest and Costs:
The plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 5,22,353.33 due on two pronotes along with subsequent interest. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 2,33,125 covered by Ex.A20 with proportionate costs and interest at 18% per annum, while dismissing the suit for the amount covered by Ex.A21. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision regarding Ex.A21 due to the plaintiff's inconsistent evidence but confirmed the decree for Rs. 2,15,000 under Ex.A20, supported by the plaintiff's evidence and corroborative documents.

3. Execution by the 2nd Defendant as Manager of the Joint Family:
The court examined whether the 2nd defendant executed the pronotes in the capacity of Manager of the joint family, binding defendants 3 and 4. The evidence indicated that the 2nd defendant executed the pronotes on behalf of the firm and in his individual capacity. The trial court's findings on this issue were not specifically challenged, and the appellate court did not find any reason to disagree with the trial court's view.

4. Execution by the 2nd Defendant as Managing Partner of the 1st Defendant Firm:
The court also considered whether the 2nd defendant executed the pronotes as the Managing Partner of the 1st defendant firm, thereby binding its partners, defendants 3 and 4. The pronote recitals and the evidence presented supported the conclusion that the 2nd defendant acted in his capacity as Managing Partner. The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings on this issue.

5. Relief Granted:
The trial court dismissed the suit for Rs. 4,72,000 covered by Ex.A21 due to the plaintiff's inconsistent evidence but decreed the suit for Rs. 2,15,000 covered by Ex.A20. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of the suit for Rs. 4,72,000 and confirmed the decree for Rs. 2,15,000 with interest, based on the evidence and corroborative documents provided by the plaintiff. The appellate court dismissed both appeals, confirming the trial court's judgment and decree on grounds other than those mentioned by the trial court, and ordered no costs for the appeals.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the trial court's judgment and decree were confirmed, with the appellate court providing a detailed examination of the evidence, legal presumptions, and the consistency of the plaintiff's testimony. The court upheld the decree for Rs. 2,15,000 with interest while dismissing the claim for Rs. 4,72,000 due to lack of consistent evidence.