Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 310 (MAD)

V. Sundaram v. P. S. Chockalinga Chettiar

2001-03-09

E.PADMANABHAN

body2001
JUDGMENT: The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant in O.S.No.44 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.6.1986 made in O.S.No.44 of 1984 on the file of the said Court. 2. Heard Mr.C.Munusamy learned counsel appearing for Mr.M.Swamikannu for the appellant and Mrs.Hemasampath learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed and before the trial Court. 4. The respondents herein instituted the suit O.s.No.44 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore for recovery of the sum of Rs.51,120 with cost and subsequent interest at 9% due on a promissory note executed by the defendant on 2.1.1984. According to the plaintiff the defendant executed the said promissory note on 2.1.1994 at Cuddalore for a valid consideration of Rs.50,000 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order. The suit promissory note it is claimed is true, valid and fully supported by consideration. The defendant caused a notice on 28.1.1984 containing false and fraudulent allegations and suggesting that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. The plaintiff sent a reply setting out the details of execution and attestation as well as passing of consideration on 31.1.1984. The plaintiff also called upon the defendant to pay the amount due under the suit promissory note. As the defendant failed to pay the same the plaintiff had filed the suit on 29.3.1984. The plaintiff filed the suit promissory note as well as the notice exchanged between the parties along with the suit plaint. 5.Per contra, the defendant denied the truth and validity of the promissory note and also denied the passing of consideration. The defendant pleaded that the suit promissory note has been obtained from him by way of coercion, fraud and undue influence. The suit promissory note was not voluntarily executed by the defendant and not a pie was paid for the same. The suit promissory note is vitiated by fraud coercion and undue influence and the plaintiff had suppressed the material facts. The defendant reiterated the contents of his notice dated 28.1.1984. The defendant is employed as a postman. The defendant’s brother Sugumar was employed in the plaintiff’s house. The plaintiff and his brother have effected partition among themselves even during the year 1961. The defendant reiterated the contents of his notice dated 28.1.1984. The defendant is employed as a postman. The defendant’s brother Sugumar was employed in the plaintiff’s house. The plaintiff and his brother have effected partition among themselves even during the year 1961. The defendant who become divided as enjoying the suit properties allotted to him separately and there was no contact between the brothers. The plaintiff had been blackmailing the defendant by alleging that the defendant’s brother who was a tenant under him had cheated him to the tune of heavy amounts and that the defendant should make good the loss. The plaintiff also had set up unruly elements and had criminally intimidated the defendant. 6. It is the further case that the defendant came to Cuddalore on 2.1.1984, on which date, the plaintiff along with one Senthamaraikannan and Kumaraguruparan took him to his house and had locked up the defendant, his brother and his wife Chandra in a room. The plaintiff stated that the defendant and his brother executed a sale deed for 0.50 cents each and paid cash of Rs.15,000. There was lot of commotion and noise and all including the defendant were taken to the house of Senthamaraikannan. The defendant has a nervous breakdown in view of the threats and acts of violence committed against him. The defendant was assaulted and beaten and threatened in all ways and coerced the defendant to sign on the promissory note. The said promissory note was obtained threats, coercion and undue influence and the violence committed on the defendant. 7. The defendant further pleaded that he and his brother’s were threatened not to leave the room unless they sign the promissory note. The defendant was subjected to horrible state of affairs, threat, coercion and intimidation and the defendant had no option but to sign the promissory note. It was represented by the plaintiff that the suit promissory note would be returned after execution of the sale deed in his favour by the defendant and his brother on 6.1.1984. Accordingly, the defendant and his brother was taken on a taxi to Villupuram and there they were compelled to execute the deeds of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff’s wife and not a pie was paid for the suit promissory note towards and the sale deeds. 8. Accordingly, the defendant and his brother was taken on a taxi to Villupuram and there they were compelled to execute the deeds of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff’s wife and not a pie was paid for the suit promissory note towards and the sale deeds. 8. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff had locked him in a room and was keeping the key. The key was handed over only on the complaint preferred to the police. The plaintiff was an influential person and the police did not take necessary action. The defendant issued a notice narrating the events and called upon the plaintiff to return the documents. The plaintiff sent a reply containing false allegation. The contents of the reply are false and they are denied. It is false to suggest that the defendant had borrowed the amount for the puberty function of the defendant’s daughter and for grocery shop and for purchase of motor pumpset. The suit claim is false and there was absolutely no need or necessity to borrow such a huge amount. The suit promissory note was obtained by undue influence, coercion and therefore it is unenforceable. The suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. The defendant also alternatively pleaded that he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Enactments Act 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982. 9. On the said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: (1) Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration? (2) Whether the suit promissory note was obtained under threat, coercion and intimidation? (3) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to? 10. The following additional issue was framed by the trial Court. Whether the defendant is entitled to invoke the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982. 11. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, while the defendant had examined himself as D.W.1, and his brother as D.W.2. The plaintiff marked Exs.A-1 to A-14 While the defendant marked Exs.B-1 to B-7. 12. On the first and second issues, the trial Court held that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration and that the defendant had failed to establish the vitiating circumstances of fraud, coercion and intimidation with respect to the execution of the suit promissory note. The plaintiff marked Exs.A-1 to A-14 While the defendant marked Exs.B-1 to B-7. 12. On the first and second issues, the trial Court held that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration and that the defendant had failed to establish the vitiating circumstances of fraud, coercion and intimidation with respect to the execution of the suit promissory note. On the additional issue the trial Court held that the defendant is not entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982. In the result, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been preferred by the defendant. 13. In this appeal the following points arise for consideration. (1) Whether Ex.A-1 was executed under vitiating circumstances of threat, coercion and intimidation? (2) Whether Ex.A-1 promissory note is supported by consideration (3) To what relief? 14. Ex.A-1, dated 2.1.1984 is the suit promissory note. Exs.A-3 and A-4, dated 6.1.1984 are the two deeds of sale respectively executed by the defendant and his brother (D.W.1) in favour of Unnamalai Ammal wife of the plaintiff. On 28.1.1984 under Ex.B-1 the defendant caused notice to the plaintiff wherein the defendant had set out the circumstances under which Ex.A-1 suit promissory note was extracted from him under threat. Coercion, intimidation, non-payment of consideration, that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and called upon the plaintiff to return the promissory note. 15. Exs.B-2 and B-3 respectively are the acknowledgments to show that the defendants had sent the police complaint to the Inspector of Police, Tirupapuliyur as well as the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Ex.B-4 is the acknowledgment from the Chief Minister’s Cell. These acknowledgments according to the defendant would show that at the earliest opportunity he had sent a complaint and at the earliest opportunity he had issued a notice challenging the suit promissory note calling upon the plaintiff to return the promissory note. 16. Ex.B-6, dated 31.1.1984 is the reply sent by the plaintiff to the defendant’s notice. Ex.B-7 is also one of the letters relied upon by the defendant. Exs.A-3 and A-4 respectively are the two documents of sale executed by the defendant and his favour in favour of the plaintiff’s wife and the plaintiff had produced the original, which documents of conveyance do have a bearing with respect to the suit transaction. Ex.B-7 is also one of the letters relied upon by the defendant. Exs.A-3 and A-4 respectively are the two documents of sale executed by the defendant and his favour in favour of the plaintiff’s wife and the plaintiff had produced the original, which documents of conveyance do have a bearing with respect to the suit transaction. The plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1. Curiously despite the challenge the plaintiff had not examined the attestors as well as the scribe. A perusal of Ex.A-1 promissory note also would show that the last of the four lines have been written to closely and beneath the revenue stamp there is some writing, which throws doubt. 17. It is the case of the plaintiff that as on 2.1.1984 he had paid a cash of Rs.50,000 in one lump to the defendant, who is only a postman, and who owns meager extent of land, it is also to be noticed that one of the four attestors Sugumar the defendants brother was examined as D.W.2 apart from S.Chandra, wife of D.W.2 was examined as D.W.3. Apart from the said two one Senthamaraikannan an another one are the attestors, The two other attestors have not been examined nor the scribe has been examined by the plaintiff. Even though at the earliest opportunity, the defendant had challenged the promissory note as vitiated by coercion, intimidation threat and other vitiating circumstances by sending notice D.W.1 had admitted that the defendant’s brother Sugumar D.W.2 was a tenant under P.W.1 and that he had money transactions with him. P.W.1 further deposited that D.W.2 was indebted to the tune of2,80,000. 18. It is interesting and important to note the very chief examination of P.W.1, which is extracted here under which would show that no consideration at all for the suit promissory note was paid even though it recites payment of cash consideration. 14. Ex.A-1, dated 2.1.1984 is the suit promissory note. Exs.A-3 and A-4, dated 6.1.1984 are the two deeds of sale respectively executed by the defendant and his brother (D.W.1) in favour of Unnamalai Ammal wife of the plaintiff. On 28.1.1984 under Ex.B-1 the defendant caused notice to the plaintiff wherein the defendant had set out the circumstances under which Ex.A-1 suit promissory note was extracted from him under threat. Exs.A-3 and A-4, dated 6.1.1984 are the two deeds of sale respectively executed by the defendant and his brother (D.W.1) in favour of Unnamalai Ammal wife of the plaintiff. On 28.1.1984 under Ex.B-1 the defendant caused notice to the plaintiff wherein the defendant had set out the circumstances under which Ex.A-1 suit promissory note was extracted from him under threat. Coercion, intimidation, non-payment of consideration, that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and called upon the plaintiff to return the promissory note. 15. Exs.B-2 and B-3 respectively are the acknowledgments to show that the defendants had sent the police complaint to the Inspector of Police, Tirupapuliyur as well as the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Ex.B-4 is the acknowledgment from the Chief Minister’s Cell. These acknowledgments according to the defendant would show that at the earliest opportunity he had sent a complaint and at the earliest opportunity he had issued a notice challenging the suit promissory note calling upon the plaintiff to return the promissory note. 16. Ex.B-6, dated 31.1.1984 is the reply sent by the plaintiff to the defendant’s notice. Ex.B-7 is also one of the letters relied upon by the defendant. Exs.A-3 and A-4 respectively are the two documents of sale executed by the defendant and his favour in favour of the plaintiff’s wife and the plaintiff had produced the original, which documents of conveyance do have a bearing with respect to the suit transaction. The plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1. Curiously despite the challenge the plaintiff had not examined the attestors as well as the scribe. A perusal of Ex.A-1 promissory note also would show that the last of the four lines have been written to closely and beneath the revenue stamp there is some writing, which throws doubt. 17. It is the case of the plaintiff that as on 2.1.1984 he had paid a cash of Rs.50,000 in one lump to the defendant, who is only a postman, and who owns meager extent of land, it is also to be noticed that one of the four attestors Sugumar the defendants brother was examined as D.W.2 apart from S.Chandra, wife of D.W.2 was examined as D.W.3. Apart from the said two one Senthamaraikannan an another one are the attestors, The two other attestors have not been examined nor the scribe has been examined by the plaintiff. Apart from the said two one Senthamaraikannan an another one are the attestors, The two other attestors have not been examined nor the scribe has been examined by the plaintiff. Even though at the earliest opportunity, the defendant had challenged the promissory note as vitiated by coercion, intimidation threat and other vitiating circumstances by sending notice D.W.1 had admitted that the defendant’s brother Sugumar D.W.2 was a tenant under P.W.1 and that he had money transactions with him. P.W.1 further deposited that D.W.2 was indebted to the tune of2,80,000. 18. It is interesting and important to note the very chief examination of P.W.1, which is extracted here under which would show that no consideration at all for the suit promissory note was paid even though it recites payment of cash consideration. 19. From the said deposition of P.W.1 it is clear that no consideration as pleaded by the plaintiff had been paid under Ex.A-1. But on the other hand, even according to the plaintiff he had handed over Rs.50,000 on 2.1.1984 to the defendant who in turn handed over the same to D.W.2 his brother and D.W.2 had in turn handed back the same to the plaintiff. It is a clear case of handing over by ones right hand to left hand. 20. P.W.1 had deposed that his son-in-law Senthamaraikannan is the scribe of Ex.A-1 suit promissory note, one Dhanapal and Sugumar (D.W.2) and his wife are the attestors------D.W.1 has further deposed that the suit promissory note has nothing to do with the sale deeds. Exs.A-3 and A-4 which are in favour of Unnamalaimmal wife of P.W.1 executed at or about the same point of time. It is rather unnatural and highly unbelievable to get the documents of sale in favour of his wife by paying cash consideration of Rs.50,000 under Ex.A-3 and Rs.10,700 under Ex.A-4, when the very defendant is already indebted to the tune of Rs.50,000 to the plaintiff under Ex.A-1. It is rather unbelievable and unnatural for the plaintiff to have taken sale deeds without settling the amount due under Ex.A-1 promissory note. Such a conduct is not a normal conduct as the plaintiff would be anxious to collect back whatever amount he had advanced to the defendant, when the defendant disposed his property and that too in favour of the plaintiff’s wife. 21. Such a conduct is not a normal conduct as the plaintiff would be anxious to collect back whatever amount he had advanced to the defendant, when the defendant disposed his property and that too in favour of the plaintiff’s wife. 21. P.W.1 has also admitted in the cross-examination that before Ex.A-1 promissory note there had been no transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the cross examination P.W.1 had deposed thus: 22. The conduct off P.W. 1 as pointed out already is not only abnormal but also extraordinary in that while getting a sale deed Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 in favour of his wife, he had not chosen to adjust the loan amount due under Ex.A-1 promissory note, when the holding of the defendant and his brother D.W.2 are meager. Further immediately after Ex.A-3 and A-4, the defendants brother had to leave the plaintiff’s premises, which he had been occupying, the alleged loan of Rs.50,000 made to the defendant, admittedly even according to the plaintiff has been used by D.W.2 to make a payment towards promissory note loan of Rs.1,80,000 -- had admitted that---------no endorsement for payment of the promissory note executed by D.W.2 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1.80,000. This is also quite abnormal conduct on the part of P.W.1, which throws serious doubts. That apart the plaintiff had not chosen to examine the scribe as well as the attestors of Ex.A-1. 23. D.W. 1 had narrated the entire vitiating circumstances under which he had executed Ex.A-1 promissory note. D.W.1 is a post man. D.W.1 had also deposed that the plaintiff took the defendant to his house to settle his brother’s account. D.W.1 had deposed that the plaintiff forcibly took him and his brother and his brother’s wife to the next street and compelled him to convey the properties owned by them to discharge the debt payable to the plaintiff by D.W.2. As D.W.1 declined, thereafter 10 to 12 persons compelled him and took his signature on the promissory note. D.W.1 had deposed thus: 24. In the cross-examination D.W.I has stated that while he was in Tindivanam, the plaintiff came with number of persons and required him to come to the village on 2.1.1984. In further cross examination D.W. had deposed thus: 25. D.W.1 has thus deposed the circumstances under which Ex.A-1 promissory note came to be executed and as to how they are vitiating circumstances. In further cross examination D.W. had deposed thus: 25. D.W.1 has thus deposed the circumstances under which Ex.A-1 promissory note came to be executed and as to how they are vitiating circumstances. Under which the plaintiff had extracted his signature on the suit promissory note as well as passing of consideration and execution of Ex.A-3 and Ex,A-4 sale deeds. 26. D.W.2 Sugumar is the brother of the defendant. P.W.1 as well as D.W.2 have admitted that they had money transactions and D.W.2 admits that he was indebted. D.W.2 had also deposed that P.W.1 came from Tindivanam and he was detained by the plaintiff. D.W.2 has deposed thus: 27. In the cross examination also the 2nd defendant had elicited the following answers: 28. The evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and that of P.W.1 when considered together in the light of execution of Ex.A-3 and A-4 sale deeds by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff’s wife and the complaint as well as the notice given by the defendant shortly thereafter in which complaint the defendant had set out the details would establish that the complaint being contemporaneous and the conduct of the plaintiff being not normal and non-examination of the attestors and scribe, besides, the non-examination of attestors and scribe and the admission of P.W.1 that the defendant did not took cash from him but the cash alleged to have been received under Ex.A-1 was handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant by just making a book entry through his brother D.W.2 would show that the plea of the plaintiff cannot be sustained and that of the defendant has to be accepted. 29. The evidence of D.Ws. deserve to be accepted as against P.W.1 in the light of contemporaneous, documents and the nature events that took place closely following Ex.A-1. It may be that the defendant has admitted his signature but the very contents of Ex.A-1 and the admission of P.W.1 would show that Ex.A-1 promissory note is not supported by consideration and Ex.A-1 came to be executed under vitiating circumstances and the defendant had not executed the same freely. The defendant had proved his case and the Court below erred in law in accepting the case of the plaintiff despite the abnormal conduct on the part of the plaintiff and his family members. 30. The defendant had proved his case and the Court below erred in law in accepting the case of the plaintiff despite the abnormal conduct on the part of the plaintiff and his family members. 30. The very appearance of Ex.A-1 and in particular the last portion containing four lines and the affixture of stamp would show that Ex.A-1 came into existence under vitiating circumstances. It is true that when the defendant admits the signature, the burden is on the defendant to prove his case. But in the present case, this Court holds that the defendant has discharged his burden in proving that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and it came to be executed under vitiating circumstances. The evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 was not accepted by the learned trial Judge and the said approach of the learned trial Judge cannot be sustained as the approach of the learned trial Judge is not on. a proper reading of pleas and in the proper perspective. 31. The learned trial Judge had failed to notice the conduct of the plaintiff, the tenor of the documents Ex.A-1, the circumstances under which Exs.A-3 and A-4 were executed and the strange conduct on the part of the plaintiff in not adjusting the debt due under Ex. A-1, while getting the sale deed in favour of his wife and what remains after the sale under Exs.A-3 and A-4 are meager while even according to D.W.2 he owes Rs.1,80,000 and------to the plaintiff. Such a conduct on the part of the P.W. 1 is rather strange. Though P.W.1 had deposed that his wife Unnamalai had got separate money transactions she had not been examined and it is P.W.1 who had produced the originals of Exs.A-3 and A-4. All these things, the trial Court had failed to take note and consider. The trial Court also failed to take into consideration of the fact that the plaintiff had not examined the two attestors and the scribe when serious challenge made against them and challenged the circumstances under which Ex.A-1 come into existence. 32. The legal contention advanced by the counsel for the plaintiff has to be taken up for consideration as to the burden of proof and the presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 32. The legal contention advanced by the counsel for the plaintiff has to be taken up for consideration as to the burden of proof and the presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In Bharat Barrel and Drum manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999)3 S.C.C. 35 , the Apex Court held thus: “Upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove, the position of law which emerges is that on execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Sec.18(a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubt full or the same as illegal, the onus, would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the nonexistence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Sec.118(a) in his favour. The Court pray insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. The Court pray insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff To disprove the presumption, the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon consideration of which the Court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its nonexistence as so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not exist.” [Italics supplied] 33. In the light of the said pronouncement it is open to the defendant to prove the non existence of consideration by putting forward such a defence and if the defendant discharges the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration as improbable or doubtful, the onus shifts to the plaintiff who is obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon his failure to prove, the same, would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the suit promissory note. 34. It is equally well-settled that the burden is heavily on the defendant to prove absence of consideration. The question of burden being shifted to the plaintiff would arise if the defendant is able to discharge that burden. The Supreme Court in Kundanlal Ballaram Custodian, Evacuee Property, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1316 held that the rule of presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is one of law and there under a Court shall presume inter alia that the negotiable instrument or the endorsement was made or endorsed for consideration. 35. It has been further held that the burden of proof of consideration is on the maker of the loan or the endorser as the case may be. The evidence that is required to shift the said burden could either be direct or an admission by the opposite party. It may even comprise circumstantial evidence or presumption of law or fact. In the present case the evidence of D.Ws. The evidence that is required to shift the said burden could either be direct or an admission by the opposite party. It may even comprise circumstantial evidence or presumption of law or fact. In the present case the evidence of D.Ws. cannot be brushed aside as interested and there are materials to establish that the suit promissory note, is not supported by consideration. The conduct of the very plaintiff himself is rather abnormal and there is no justification to accept the evidence of P.W.1 merely applying the rule of presumption when sufficient and substantial proof had been let in by the defendant to prove that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. 36. Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of S.S.Subramani, J., in Meenakshisundaram v. Rangasami. (1996)1 M.L.J. 297 : (1996)1 C.T.C. 613 in support of her contention that there is a presumption regarding passing of consideration. S.S.Subramani, J. as he then was, after analysing the entire case law held thus: “The presumption under Sec.118 applies once the execution of the pronote is accepted by the defendant, but the circumstance that the plaintiffs case is at variance with the one contained in the promissory note or the notice, can be relied upon by the defendant for the purpose of rebutting the presumption and shifting the evidential burden to the plaintiff who has also the legal burden.” 37. The above pronouncement of S.S.Subramani, J., it has to be pointed out is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case and in no way advance the case of the plaintiff, but on the other hand, this pronouncement supports the view taken by this Court on the on evidence let by the defendant. 38. In Perumal Chettiar v. T.Santhanam, 1992 L.W. 225, this Court held that though the Court has to presume that such negotiable instruments were made drawn or accepted or negotiated for consideration however when overwhelming evidence is let in by the defendant to prove want of consideration and when the defendant had discharged the burden, the rule of presumption has to naturally give way to the substantial evidence let in by the defendant in this respect. 39. 39. As already pointed out this Court had referred to the evidence let in by either side and on the facts of the present case this Court has to accept the plea put forward by the defendants besides, holding that the defendant had discharged the burden that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and that the same had been executed under vitiating circumstances of threat, coercion and intimidation. In this respect the evidence let in by the defendant would show the conduct of the plaintiff and the non examination of attestor and scribe by the plaintiff looms large. 40. In the circumstances, both the points framed in this appeal has to be answered in favour of the defendant/ appellant and consequently the judgment and decree of the trial Court are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside. In the result, the suit O.S.No.44 of 1984 instituted by the respondent herein on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore will stand dismissed with costs throughout.