9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p owner has compelled and demanded the defendant to put his signature on two stamped unwritten blank paper and the defendant had put his signature on the said two stamped unwritten blank paper. The Shop owner has fabricated the said stamp paper as promissory note in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, the promissory note is a fabricated one. No consideration was passed under the promissory note. On 25.7.1992, the defendant has paid the entire balance of Rs. 4,480. 4. The defendant also filed additional written statement, wherein he has contended that the plaintiff has no means to pay the suit promissory note amount. The plaintiff was also not having amount to pay the suit promissory note amount at the time of the execution of the promissory note. 5. Based upon the above said pleadings, the trial court framed necessary issues. The plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the scribe as P.W.2. The defendant had examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined one more witness. The plaintiff has filed Exs.A1 to A8 and the defendant has filed Ex.B1. The trial court, after taking into consideration the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that the suit p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstruments Act, the person signs either wholly blank or having written thereon an negotiable instrument, shall be liable to pay the amount to any holder in due course for such amount. 10. On the contrary, the learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the defendant has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. With regard to the amount due to one Sri Selvasubramania Vilas Shop owner, he had signed in an unwritten blank stamped paper and the suit promissory note was fabricated by the plaintiff with the help of the said shop owner and therefore, it is a clear case of fabrication of the promissory note and the defendant is not at all liable to pay the suit promissory note amount. The respondent/defendant also relied upon the judgments reported in A. Irudayasamy v. V. Perumal Naidu, 1997 (1) LW 474 and Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By LRs., 2000 (1) CTC 505. 11. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant borrowed the amount under the promissory note dated 1.2.1992 and the same is being denied by the defendant. But, however, the defendant admits his signature in the suit promissory note, but would deny the rest of the writings in the suit promissory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... negotiate the instrument. The only limitation is that 'the holder in due course' can recover any amount specified thereunder and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The suit promissory note is consisting of two 20 paise revenue stamps, totalling 40 paise revenue stamps and therefore, the amount claimed under the suit promissory note is properly stamped. The view expressed above that the holder in due course is empowered to fill up the blanks and to negotiate the instrument is supported by the view taken by the learned Judge (S.M. Ali Mohamed, J.) of this Court, in the case of Chidambaram v. P. T. Ponnuswamy, 1995 (2) LW 719. The said decision is relied upon by another learned single Judge of this court in the case of P. Talamalai Chetty v. Rathinasamy, 1997 (1) LW 843. A passage from the commentaries on the Negotiable Instruments Act by Bashyam and Adigar's, Eighth Edition, Page 201, reads as The instrument may be wholly blank or incomplete in any particular, in either case, the holder has the authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one. 15. The above said judgments fortify the case of the plaintiff. Even assuming that the contents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indings on facts and no substantial questions of law has arisen for determination . Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff took up the matter before the Supreme Court by a Special Leave Petition. The apex court directed notice to be issued to the defendant on a limited question as to why the matter should not be remanded back to the High Court for deciding the appeal after framing the necessary substantial questions of law . In the said factual matrix, the Supreme Court had analysed the power of the appellate court under Section 100, CPC and ultimately remanded the matter back to the High Court for hearing and deciding the second appeal afresh. 18. I am aware that under Section 100, CPC, this court is not entitled to reappreciate the evidence. But, if the finding of the lower appellate court is not based on materials or pleadings or the same is against the legal principles, I am entitled to interfere with the said finding. 19. In our case, I would be able to point out that Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not brought to the notice either before the trial court or before the lower appellate court, which resulted in the dismissal of the suit by the trial court an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the stamped paper and the writings were subsequently filled up. We have already seen Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which empowers the 'holder in due course' to fill up the blanks and to negotiate the instrument. As such, the promissory note given by the defendant is admitted and the burden shifts upon the defendant that the writings in the promissory note were subsequently filled up and he has not borrowed the amount under the promissory note, which the defendant has not proved in this case. Presumptions with regard to the negotiable instruments as stated under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are also in favour of the plaintiff. As the defendant is not able to prove the contrary versions with regard to consideration, as to date............. as to stamps and also that holder is a holder in due course and in the said circumstances, the presumptions have got to be drawn in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, on that score also the defendant has to fail. 23. In the said circumstances, I hold that the courts below have committed a legal error in not having considered the provisions of Sections 20 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
