9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant 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. - S.A.(MD) No.593 of 2020 and CMP(MD) No.6340 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2022 - THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN For the Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam For the Respondent :Mr.F.X.Eugene JUDGMENT The present second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.101 of 2018 dated 29.07.2019 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.160 of 2016 dated 03.08.2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankovil. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court. 3.The case of the plaintiff, as per the averments made in he plaint, in short, reads as follows : On 14.12.2013. the defendant borrowed a sum of ₹ 4,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and also executed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Since many buyers are coming the defendant insisted the plaintiff to honour the said agreement but the plaintiff was developing enmity over the defendant had fabricated the suit promissory notes with the help of his associates by utilizing the signature of the defendant found in the unfilled promissory note executed by the defendant. The defendant has not borrowed ₹ 4,00,000/- from the plaintiff through the suit promissory note. For the legal notice issued by the plaintiff the defendant has sent a suitable reply notice. The defendant is ready to repay the advance of ₹ 1,90,000/- received by him from the plaintiff and the cause of action set out in the plaint is an imaginary one,hence prays for dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial Court has framed four issues for determination of the suit, as under: a) Whether it is true that the defendant had borrowed ₹ 400000/- on 14.12.2013 from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note? b)Whether it is true that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document? c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim? d)To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 6. On the side of the th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egotiable Instruments Act and it authorizes execution of blank promissory notes. Actually it is intended to augment the commercial transactions. This is recognized in Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It authorizes the holder of the instrument to fill up the blanks with amount upto the value of the stamp. This position of law has been validly taken advantage of by the learned counsel for the respondent to thrash down the plea of the appellants that they have signed in blank promissory note. 23. Their signature in Ex.A.6 has been admitted by the defendants. With regard to the passing of the consideration, evidence has been let in by the plaintiff. In such circumstance, there is no independent evidence except the evidence of D.W.1, which is not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption arising under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 25. Ex.B.1 letter reads the travails of a lender. There was no reference in Ex.B.1 that it has been written in connection with the promissory note debt. Ex.B.1 would not absolve the defendants from their very duty to rebut the presumption arose under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 11. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to an yet another judgment of this Court in T.K.Kulandaivelu .vs. K.P. Nallusamy, reported in (2021 (4) CTC 520) wherein it has been held as follows:- 9.In the case on hand also, the signature in the suit pro-note has been admitted. Therefore, the approach laid down in the aforesaid decision will have to be adopted. The trial Court was justified in drawing presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the plaintiff/appellant herein. The question that next arises is whether the presumption had been successfully rebut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sponse to Ex.A2 legal notice issued by the plaintiff, calling upon the defendant to settle the amounts due on the promissory note, dated 14.12.2013. On perusal of Ex.A4 reply notice would disclose that in none of the portion the defendant admitted the signature found the suit promissory note. In fact in Ex.A4, the defendant had contended that the promissory note was tendered with signature alone not with regard to the alleged borrowing of ₹ 4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 14.12.2013, but as a token for having received ₹ 1,90,000/- as advance out of the sale consideration of ₹ 2,50,000/- agreed by the plaintiff to purchase the lands of the father of the defendant. Since the defendant had not admitted his signature, the contention of the plaintiff that Sections 20 and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act have to be invoked in favour of the plaintiff cannot be countenanced. 17. During cross examination, the plaintiff deposed that the defendant brought the attestors and scribe to his house, situated at Vakaikulam and as per the dictate of the defendant, the promissory note was prepared by the scribe Subramanian with his pen. P.W.2 Peter Prabhakaran, an attestor to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
