9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e word 4 was written by him in the pro-note. After admitting, now without any substantial evidence, arguing before this Court that the suit pro-note was materially altered, cannot be accepted. During the time of transaction the defendant was a contractor in Municipality, so, naturally he would have the wide knowledge in respect of the instrument and also he knows the value of his signature - Hence, being the reason that the defendant admits the signature found in the pro-note is his signature under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it was understand that the defendant gave authority to the plaintiff to fill up the same as a complete Negotiable Instrument. Before the trial Court the factum of material alteration is not proved and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he plaintiff, in order to discharge the loan, the defendant neither paid the principal nor the interest. In order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant is trying to alienate his properties, so the plaintiff has not served with notice on the defendant. The defendant is not an agriculturist. Hence, he is not entitled to avail the relief under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act. 4. The contentions raised by the defendant in his written statement are as follows: 4.1. On 28.08.2006, the defendant borrowed a sum of ₹ 20,000/- from the plaintiff for which, the plaintiff demanded excessive rate of interest. In order to recover the excessive rate of interest, the plaintiff got a pro-note for ₹ 40,000/-. The plaintiff g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e marked as Exs. B1 to B3. 6. Having considered the materials placed before him, the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore came to the conclusion that the claim made by the plaintiff is not true and after concluding as above dismissed the suit with entirety. In the appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Cuddalore reversed the finding arrived at by the trial Court and ultimately the suit was decreed as prayed for. Being dissatisfied with the same, the defendant is before this Court with this present second appeal. 7. At the time of admission, this Court had formulated the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in law the lower appellate Court was right in overlooking that the presumption under Section 118 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven by the Lower Appellate Court do not want any modification. 11. The submissions made by the counsels appearing on either side are considered. 12. It is not in dispute that the signature found in the pro-note is belongs to the defendant. In otherwise in relates to execution, during the time of trial, he had given evidence as, on the top of the pro-note, the word '₹ 40,000/-' was written by him. In this occasion the present suit has been filed for the claim of '₹ 1,40,000/-'. Hence, it would be necessary to see as to whether the word ₹ 40,000/- was materially altered into ₹ 1,40,000/-. 13. In the said occasion, before the trial Court in order to prove the execution of the pro-note, the plaintiff w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ategory that after materially altered the pro-note, the suit has been filed. 16. In this context, whether the instrument appears to be altered, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the alteration is improperly made and the presumption in the case of the Negotiable Instruments is that the alteration was made subsequent to the issue of the instrument. 17. Here, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant himself written the word '₹ 40,000/-' in the pro-note. Further in respect of the same, while at the time the defendant gave evidence as D.W.1, he himself admitted that the word '4' was written by him in the pro-note. After admitting as above, now without any substantial evidence, arguing before this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
