9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he would have used the said amount for any illegal purpose. Therefore, it has to be presumed that he borrowed the amount only for the benefit of the family. Therefore, the defendants are bound to discharge the said debt from and out of the estate left by the deceased G.Pandurangan which is in their hands - the trial Court had rightly decreed the suit. Further, though the plaintiff had claimed interest at the rate of 24% till the date of the suit, the trial Court taking into consideration the transaction is not a commercial transaction, it has reduced the interest and directed the defendants to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the principal and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum. But the first Appellate Court without appreciating the evidence in a proper perspective had erroneously reversed the findings of the trial Court and therefore, the Second Appeal has to be allowed. The Second Appeal is allowed with costs. - S.A.No. 162 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 22-5-2019 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. RAJAMANICKAM For the Appellant : Mr.K.A.Ravindran For the Respondent : Mr.V.Perumal for Mr.T.Dhanyakumar for R1 R2 JUDGMENT This Second A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid debts from and out of the estate of G.Pandurangan which is in their hands. After the death of the said G.Pandurangan, the plaintiff has been demanding the first defendant to pay the due. She has been taking time to pay the amount but she did not come forward to pay amount. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 10.05.2010 to the defendants demanding the payment of the amount. Though the first defendant had received the said notice, she did not send any reply nor paid the amount. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for recovery of the amount. 5. The averments made in the written statement filed by the first defendant on her behalf and also on behalf of the other minor defendants are in brief as follows:- The allegation that the deceased G.Pandurangan borrowed a sum of ₹ 30,000/- to clear the debt and executed a promissory note on 07.06.2007 agreeing to repay the demand at the rate of 24% per annum are all false. It is also false to say that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the estate of the deceased G.Pandurangan. The execution of the promissory note dated 07.06.2007 is specifically denie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suit when there is no contra evidence let in by the respondents/defendants to disprove the execution of the pronote by Sr.Pandurangan under Ex.A1? 2. Whether the respondents / defendants had obtained from the witness box and had not made any statement in support of their pleading set out in the written statement, whether the lower Appellate Court is right in dismissing the suit without drawing an adverse inference against the defendants? 3.When the appellant has specifically stated and proved the execution of pronote and passing of consideration whether the lower Appellate Court is right in dismissing the suit? 9. Heard, Mr.K.A.Ravindran, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.Perumal for Mr.T.Dhanyakumar for the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. 10. Substantial Questions of law 1 to 3:- The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the first Appellate Court has erred in reversing the well considered judgment and decree of the trial Court. He further submitted that the first Appellate Court failed to see that the plaintiff has established his case through oral and documentary evidence but the defendants did not adduce evidence on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was incurred by him while purchasing the land and agreed to repay the said amount on demand with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. His further case is that inspite of demands, the said G.Pandurangan died without discharging the said debt and that the defendants being the legal heirs of the said G.Pandurangan are liable to discharge the said debt from and out of estate of the deceased. His further case is that after the death of the said G.Pandurangan, he made demands with the first defendant to pay the debt but she has been taking time to pay the amount but she has not paid and hence, he was constrained to send a lawyer's notice on 10.05.2010. His further case is that even though the first defendant had received the said notice, she did not send any reply nor paid the amount and hence, he was constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount. 13. The case of the defendants is that the deceased G.Pandurangan did not execute the suit promissory note and he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff. Their further case is that the signatures found in the suit promissory note are not that of the deceased G.Pandurangan. Their further case is that the plaintiff was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst defendant did not come forward to give evidence. Though the first defendant has taken a plea in the written statement that the signatures found in the suit promissory note are not that of her husband, to prove the said plea, she did not enter into the witness box and subjected herself for cross examination. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants. 18. It is also to be pointed out that in the written statement, the first defendant has stated that the plaintiff was running a Finance Firm at Pernampet several years ago and with the help of the documents available in the said Finance Firm, the plaintiff has fabricated the suit documents and filed the false suit. So, according to the first defendant, her husband had left certain documents with the aforesaid Finance Firm and only with the help of the said documents, the suit promissory note was fabricated. In such a case, it has to be presumed that the first defendant's husband G.Pandurangan would have executed the suit promissory note. Therefore, the burden is upon the defendants that the suit promissory note was given by the deceased G.Pandurangan only in the said Finance Firm, but the defenda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
