9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Promissory Note in view of Section 101, 102 of Indian Evidence Act or not. HELD THAT:- The plaintiff, having prima facie proved to the court that the signatures were those of the defendants by examination of the attesting witnesses, the least that the defendants should have done was take out an application for appointment of an advocate commissioner to take the document to the forensic science laboratory and have obtained a report that the document is an act of forgery and does not contain their signatures. Unfortunately for Mr.N.Subramani, this act has not been done. This will also answer the argument of Mr.N.Subramani that the address of the attesting witnesses had not been mentioned in the document. The basis on which the said acquitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a promissory note was executed for due and valid consideration. It is the case of the plaintiff and it is found in the promissory note that the amount was received towards the marriage expenses of Priya, the daughter of the defendants and the said amount has to be repaid at the rate of 12% per annum. Demanding the repayment, a notice was issued on 15.09.2006. The defendants did not receive the notice. The plaintiff agreeing that the defendants were agriculturists, instead of 12%, sought 9% on the amount advanced. 4. The defence, which is evident from the written statement filed by the first defendant and adopted by the second defendant, is that they have not received any amount from the plaintiff and the pro-note is a fabricated one. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and Mr.N.Subramani for the respective parties. 10. I heard the appeal on following questions of law: 1. Whether or not the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the promissory note is given for valid consideration or proving the execution of promissory note is sufficient in view of Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act? 2. Whether or not the burden shift on the respondent/defendants immediately on plaintiff proving the execution of Promissory Note? 3. Whether or not the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the Promissory Note is supported by consideration, while the defendant had admitted the signature contained in Promissory Note in view of Section 101, 102 of Indian Evidence Act? 11. Being a money suit, the appeal was heard on all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecords. 16. It is found from the evidence of PW1 to PW3 that the signature of the defendants had been proved on the document. The initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the document had been executed by the defendants and once the burden is discharged, the onus shifts to the defendants to show that the Court should not draw an inference under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 17. Now let me deal with the arguments seriatum of Mr.N.Subramani. Insofar as the non-impleading of Mr.Prakash, the son of the defendants is concerned, I went through the written statement and I do not find that the non-impleading of the said Prakash has been pleaded as being fatal to the suit. Under Order I Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument. All the attesting witnesses viz., two on the side of the plaintiff and one on the side of the defendants have categorically admitted to their signatures in the document, which implies that the execution of the document has prima facie been proved and the onus would now shift to the defendants to discharge the presumption that lays heavily on them under Section 118. No steps were taken by the defendants to disprove the signatures that have been made on the document, though they have pleaded that the document is forgery. 21. The plaintiff, having prima facie proved to the court that the signatures were those of the defendants by examination of the attesting witnesses, the least that the defendants should have done was take out an appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al provisions of law and thus, requires interference. 24. In the light of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. The judgment and decree in A.S.No.5 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Court at Tindivanam dated 28.07.2011 in reversing the judgment and decree of the court of District Munsif at Vanur in O.S.No.71 of 2007 dated 25.10.2010 is set aside. O.S.No.71 of 2007 shall stand decreed as prayed for. The plaintiff will be entitled to recover the sum of Rs.31,125/- together with interest at 6% per annum instead of 9%, since the plaintiff himself has admitted that the defendants are agriculturists. 25. In fine, Second appeal is allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
