9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is clear that P.W.1 had not admitted that he had no means to lend money. Further, there is no pleading regarding the means of the plaintiff to lend money and further suggestion was also not put to the plaintiff whether he had no means to lend money. The question regarding why 3 pronotes executed on the same date and the suit was filed at the fag end of the limitation were ever suggested during cross examination on P.W.1 and that aspect was also not pleaded in the written statement. Further the defendant had not attempted to produce and mark the complaint given by the Muthuveerapan against the defendant and her husband - as per Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it has not been satisfactorily rebutted by the defendant proved tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court. 5.The case of the plaintiff, as per the averments made in he plaint, in short, reads as follows : On 22.09.2008, the defendant borrowed a sum of ₹ 3,00,000/- for her urgent need and family expenses and also executed 3 promissory notes at Muthulapuram Village on the same date for ₹ 1,00,000/- and also agreed to repay the same on demand by signing in the promissory note each ₹ 1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of ₹ 1/-, for ₹ 100/- per month. Since the defendant did not adhere to the terms and agreement for payment of money the plaintiff with no other alternate remedy filed the suit seeking for payment of money by recovering the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issory notes and thus there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is liable for dismissal. 7. On the side of the the plaintiff, 3 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and 5 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A5. On the side of the defendant, the defendant herself was examined as D.W.1 and marked 3 documents as Exs. B1 to B.3. 8. On analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has allowed the suit, as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred an appeal in A.S. No.18 of 2015, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. 9. The first appellate court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, had dismissed the appeal suit. Aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suit for recovery of money, when the plaintiff has not lent any amount to the defendant and pronotes are not supported by consideration, but the Court take the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, which is rebuttable one and decreed the suit without considering evidence. The courts below miserably failed to note that the plaintiff has no sufficient means in his hand to lent money to the outsiders, as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.2. The Courts below committed serious error by observing that the appellant had admitted the signature in the alleged pronotes and hence as under Section 118 of the NI Act came into pay with regard to the payment of consideration, time, date etc without adverting to the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the plaintiff has no sufficient means to lent money to the defendant and all the above circumstances are clearly established the case of the defendant and disproved the case of the plaintiff. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant / defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff and also perused the materials available on record. 14. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed the sum of ₹ 3,00,000/- for which, the defendant executed 3 promissory notes each for ₹ 1,00,000/- and agreeing to repay interest at 12% p.m. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the loan amount. According to the defendant, she has not executed the suit pronotes and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x.A2 and unregistered othi deed executed by the defendant and her husband in favour of said Muthuveerappan is marked as Ex.A3. It is admitted by P.W.1 that the said Muthu Veerappan is the son-in-law of the defendant 16. P.W.1 in his cross-examination had deposed as follows:- Therefore, it is clear that P.W.1 had not admitted that he had no means to lend money. Further, there is no pleading regarding the means of the plaintiff to lend money and further suggestion was also not put to the plaintiff whether he had no means to lend money. The question regarding why 3 pronotes executed on the same date and the suit was filed at the fag end of the limitation were ever suggested during cross examination on P.W.1 and that aspect was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
