2022 (1) TMI 252 - HC - Indian Laws

Entitlement to claim suit - suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document or not - HELD THAT - Admittedly, Ex.A1 was prepared through computer. If really the suit promissory note had been executed by the defendant, as claimed by the plaintiff, absolutely there is no possibility of material contradictions creeping into the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to execution of the suit promissory note. Further, admittedly, there was a civil dispute between the defendants father and P.W.2, it is hard to comprehend that the defendant would have brought P.W.2 for the purpose of making attestation in the suit promissory note and therefore, this Court is of the view that P.W.2 is not a trustworthy witness. The trite law is that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to pick holes in the defendants case and claim to have proved his case. No doubt, the Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence placed and proper understanding of the settled principles of law governing the provisions of Sections 20 and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Admittedly, the defendant received a sum of ₹ 1,90,000/- from the plaintiff, which he is liable to pay the same to the plaintiff with reasonable interest. Accordingly, the defendant is directed to pay a sum of ₹ 1,90,000/-, as agreed, to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 3% per annum. The Second Appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the defendant borrowed ?4,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note.
2. Whether the promissory note is forged and fabricated.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim.
4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled.

Detailed Analysis of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Whether the defendant borrowed ?4,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note.
The plaintiff claimed that on 14.12.2013, the defendant borrowed ?4,00,000/- and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the amount with interest. Despite several requests, the defendant failed to repay, leading the plaintiff to issue a legal notice on 22.11.2016. The defendant, however, denied the execution of the promissory note, contending that the note was given as security for an advance payment of ?1,90,000/- related to a property sale agreement. The trial court, upon analyzing the evidence, found discrepancies in the plaintiff's narrative and dismissed the suit. The appellate court upheld this decision, leading to the current second appeal.

Issue 2: Whether the promissory note is forged and fabricated.
The defendant argued that the promissory note was fabricated using his signature from an unfilled note given as security for a property sale. The plaintiff countered that even if the note was initially unfilled, under Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the plaintiff had the liberty to fill in the details. The trial court found inconsistencies in the plaintiff's and witness's testimonies regarding the note's preparation and execution, questioning the credibility of the plaintiff's case. The appellate court agreed, noting that the defendant never admitted to the signature on the promissory note in any legal documents.

Issue 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim.
The plaintiff's claim was based on the alleged promissory note. However, the courts found that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution and authenticity of the note. The trial court highlighted material contradictions in the plaintiff's evidence, and the appellate court concurred, emphasizing the lack of credible evidence to support the plaintiff's claim. Consequently, the courts ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to the claimed amount based on the contested promissory note.

Issue 4: To what relief the plaintiff is entitled.
While dismissing the plaintiff's main claim, the court acknowledged that the defendant admitted to receiving ?1,90,000/- from the plaintiff. Therefore, the court directed the defendant to repay this amount with interest at the rate of 3% per annum. This decision balanced the need to address the admitted transaction while rejecting the unproven claim of the larger amount.

Conclusion:
The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgments of the trial and appellate courts. The courts found that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution and authenticity of the promissory note, and thus, was not entitled to the claimed amount. However, the defendant was directed to repay the admitted advance of ?1,90,000/- with reasonable interest.