9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ex.A1 is that of the appellant, presumption was rightly raised against her. But then, on a balance of probabilities, the defendant had rebutted the presumption. The plaintiff never had the financial capacity to lend the sum of ₹ 10.00 lakhs to the defendant. The defendant was having psychiatric issues and she had under influence of the plaintiff and making use of the same, the plaintiff had obtained certain signed blank documents from her. Ex.A1 was one such document. Due execution of Ex.A1 has not at all been established - appeal allowed. - A.S.(MD)No.134 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 3-9-2021 - THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN For the Appellant : Mr.T.R.Subramanian For the Respondents: Mr.V.S.Kumaraguru JU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 10,00,000/- from the date of the plaint till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a.. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal came to be filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and dismiss the suit. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the impugned judgment and decree do not warrant any interference. 5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record. 6. The points for consideration are as follows:- i) Whether the signature appearing in Ex.A.1 is that of the defendant/appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted in his returns. A person of normal prudence will not lend a huge sum without taking any security. More than anything else, the plaintiff claimed that by pledging his wife's jewellery, he was able to generate the funds. In this regard, Ex.A.11 was marked. 8. A mere look at Ex.A.11 series would show that on various dates in November and December 2011, the plaintiff had approached Manappuram Finance Ltd., and availed loans to the tune of few lakhs and rupees and earlier he approached S.S.Bank, Iyempettai, in August 2011 and December 2011 and availed certain sums of money. It is inconceivable that a person would pledge one's jewellery to advance loan to some other person. This probabilises the case of the defendant that the plai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was that since she was under the influence of the plaintiff, she had parted with 40 sovereigns of jewellery. She also stated that her signatures were taken in stamp papers for the purpose of obtaining electricity connection. Her stand appears to be that the signed documents were misused by the plaintiff and made the basis for filing the suit. 11. Since the signature in Ex.A.1 is that of the appellant/defendant, the trial Court was justified in drawing presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The only question that calls for consideration is whether the defendant rebutted the said presumption. The presumption raised under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted in several ways. It can be not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er filing of the suit, the defendant had repeatedly moved the local police. 13. From the overall consideration of the evidence, I firmly come to the conclusion that the defendant had rebutted the presumption raised against her and onus once again fell on the plaintiff. The plaintiff should establish that he had lent a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- to the defendant as per Ex.A.1. Since it has not been established by the plaintiff, the suit has to necessarily fail. The Court below failed to consider the circumstances projected by the defendant. Since the signature appearing in Ex.A1 is that of the appellant, presumption was rightly raised against her. But then, on a balance of probabilities, the defendant had rebutted the presumption. The pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
