Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3399 (MAD)

P. Palaniappan v. A. Natarajan

2019-12-12

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2019
JUDGMENT The appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2015 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in O.S.No.105 of 2004. 2. The defendant is the appellant and the plaintiff is the respondent in the appeal suit. 3. The suit was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff stating that the defendant/appellant was working as the Sub-Inspector of Police Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and in order to purchase shares in the name of his father-in-law and relatives of Shankar Paper Board Company, the defendant/appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 05.05.1996 and Rs.1,65,000/- on 19.05.1996, Rs.4,50,000/- on 26.05.1996 and Rs.35,000/- on 02.06.1996. Totally, the defendant/appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards loan from the plaintiff/respondent. Accordingly, the defendant/appellant executed promissory notes, which were marked as documents and further, the defendant/appellant had promised that he will pay the interest of Rs.2/- for Rs.100/- per month and he will pay the principal amount also. However, the defendant/ appellant had not honoured his commitment and despite the repeated demand made by the plaintiff/respondent, the defendant/appellant had not repaid the principal amount as well as the interest. This apart, the plaintiff/respondent had stated that the defendant/appellant had got lot of properties and he was receiving Government salary also. 4. The defendant/appellant filed a written statement stating that he was working as a Police Officer. However, the defendant/appellant had denied the allegations in the plaint. It is contended that the defendant/appellant had never intended to purchase the shares of Shankar Paper Board Company and borrowed a total sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards loan from the plaintiff/respondent. Further, the defendant/appellant had stated that he had not executed any promissory notes and the dates mentioned in the promissory notes were imaginary. 5. The defendant/appellant had questioned the genuinity of the promissory notes also. The defendant/appellant had stated that the promissory notes have been concocted by the plaintiff/respondent with the help of his henchman and enemies of the defendant/appellant to cause loss and injury to the defendant/appellant. The defendant/ appellant had been serving in the Gudalur Police Station during the relevant period, which is at the distance of more than 300 kilometers 3/14 from Salem. 6. The plaintiff/respondent had chosen the dates, which all were Sundays with the predominant idea of proving later that only on Sundays the defendant/appellant had borrowed the alleged loan amount from the plaintiff/respondent. 6. The plaintiff/respondent had chosen the dates, which all were Sundays with the predominant idea of proving later that only on Sundays the defendant/appellant had borrowed the alleged loan amount from the plaintiff/respondent. The appellant/defendant had stated that there was no need to borrow such a huge amount from the plaintiff/respondent and he had not borrowed money for the purpose of purchasing the shares of Shankar Paper Board Company in the name of his father-in-law and also his relatives. 7. The defendant/appellant denied the receipt of any notice sent by the plaintiff/respondent on 22.02.1999 and he said that Mr.Arthanarisamy had some kind of business transactions with the plaintiff/respondent and he also joined hands with the plaintiff/ respondent out of enmity and both the plaintiff/respondent and Mr.Arthanarisamy have concocted, forged and fabricated the alleged promissory notes. 8. By way of a reply statement, the plaintiff/respondent had stated that the contentions in the written statement are absolutely 4/14 incorrect and false. The defendant/appellant had executed suit promissory notes and there was no tampering or otherwise in respect of the promissory notes executed by the defendant/appellant in lieu of the loan amount. 9. The Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:- “(i) Whether the suit promissory notes Exs.A-1 to A-4 are genuine or not ? and (ii) Whether the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,64,860/- along with interest to the plaintiff or not ?” 10. On behalf of the plaintiff/respondent, PWs 1 to 4 were examined as witnesses and Exs.A-1 to A-29 were marked as documents. On behalf of the defendant/appellant, DW-1 was examined as witness and Exs.B-1 to B-6 were marked as documents. 11. The Trial Court adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents as well as the evidences produced and considered the deposition of witnesses. 12. As far as issue No.1 is concerned, the allegations of the plaintiff/respondent as well as the defendant/appellant were gone into. The judgment of the Trial Court reveals that to prove the promissory notes, the plaintiff/respondent had examined PWs.2 and 3. As far as PW-2 is concerned, he signed as a witness in the promissory notes and as far as PW-3 is concerned, he had written the promissory notes. Both the witnesses have deposed before the Trial Court that the defendant/appellant had borrowed money from the plaintiff/ respondent and executed the promissory notes. As far as PW-2 is concerned, he signed as a witness in the promissory notes and as far as PW-3 is concerned, he had written the promissory notes. Both the witnesses have deposed before the Trial Court that the defendant/appellant had borrowed money from the plaintiff/ respondent and executed the promissory notes. The deposition of PWs.2 and 3 were crystal clear that the promissory notes were executed on receipt of loan from the plaintiff/respondent by the defendant/appellant. 13. The Trial Court further found that there is no contradictions or ambiguity in respect of the depositions of PWs 1 to 3. All the three witnesses have cogently deposed that the promissory notes were executed on receipt of the loan amount from the plaintiff/ respondent by the defendant/appellant. 14. As far as the promissory notes were concerned, once the plaintiff/respondent had established the execution of the 6/14 promissory notes, then it is to be considered, as the same is a valid document, for the purpose of considering the relief sought for in the plaint. 15. The Trial Court categorically found that PWs 1 to 3 in their examinations clearly deposed that the defendant/appellant had received the loan amount and executed the promissory notes and accordingly, the Trial Court arrived a conclusion that the promissory notes were genuine and executed on receipt of the loan amount from the plaintiff/respondent and there is no ambiguity. 16. This apart, the defendant/appellant, at later point of time, had raised a ground that the signatures in the promissory notes are forged one. Even at that point of time, the Trial Court had given an opportunity to establish the signatures and in this regard, an Handwriting Expert was engaged to ascertain the genuinty of the signatures and in this regard, the plaintiff/respondent's side examined PW-4. PW-4, Handwriting Expert, in his affidavit, categorically had stated that the signature of the defendant/appellant is tallying with the signature in the promissory notes. The said Handwriting Expert examined various documents and arrived a conclusion that the signature of the defendant/appellant in the promissory notes are established. 17. Considering all these evidences and the documents, the Trial Court made a finding that the defendant/appellant had failed to establish his case. The said Handwriting Expert examined various documents and arrived a conclusion that the signature of the defendant/appellant in the promissory notes are established. 17. Considering all these evidences and the documents, the Trial Court made a finding that the defendant/appellant had failed to establish his case. Contrarily, the plaintiff/respondent could able to prove that the promissory notes were executed by the defendant/ appellant on receipt of the loan amount and further, his signature was also verified through the Handwriting Expert. 18. The defendant/appellant further made an attempt to develop the case by stating that the plaintiff/respondent had borrowed money from Rajalakshmi Finance and he had repaid the same. Therefore, he had no source of income to pay the loan to the defendant/appellant. 19. The Trial Court considered that even the defendant/ appellant had stated that there was no necessity for him to borrow the loan amount from the plaintiff/respondent. The promissory notes reveal that the amount was received from the plaintiff/respondent for purchase of shares of Shankar Paper Board Company. In order to establish that the family of the defendant/appellant is having share in Shankar Paper Board Company, the plaintiff/respondent filed a document in Ex.A-29. As per the said document, the defendant/ appellant had purchased shares in his father-in-law and in the name of the relatives from Shankar Paper Board Company and even that aspect was established by the plaintiff/respondent through the documents. 20. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court cogently dealt with the documents as well as the witnesses. The Trial Court examined the genuinity of the promissory notes. Further, engaged Handwriting Expert and ascertained the correctness of the signature in the promissory notes and that apart, considered the document, more specifically, Ex.A-29, with reference to the purchase of shares from Shankar Paper Board Company in the name of father-in-law of the defendant/appellant and his relatives. When all these documents were properly examined and the deposition of the witnesses, more specifically, PWs 1 to 3 in clear terms said that the defendant/appellant had borrowed the amount and executed the promissory notes, this Court is not inclined to find any perversity or error in respect of the conclusion arrived by the Trial Court. 21. As far as the promissory note cases are concerned, the parties need not be allowed to go beyond the scope of the suit. 21. As far as the promissory note cases are concerned, the parties need not be allowed to go beyond the scope of the suit. During cross-examination, some unnecessary questions were asked by the defendant/appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant/appellant in the present appeal suit reiterated that the defendant/appellant had not borrowed the loan amount and he was the retired Inspector of Police and there was no need for him to get such loan amount from the plaintiff/respondent. Therefore, the entire promissory notes are concocted one and during the relevant point of time that the promissory notes were executed and the defendant/ appellant was working in Gudalur Police Station and therefore, the said promissory notes were false and incorrect. The learned counsel for the defendant/appellant further reiterated that the Trial Court has committed an error in considering all these grounds raised. 22. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent reiterated that the Trial Court had cogently considered the documents and witnesses with reference to the issues framed and the reading of the entire judgment reveals that the appellant/defendant had borrowed the loan amount from the plaintiff/respondent and not repaid and therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and it is to be dismissed. 23. This Court is of the considered opinion that certain contradictions were made out by the learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant. However, those contradictions are no way connected with the main issue at all. The witnesses sometimes, during cross- examination, made certain statement, which may be relevant or may not be in consonance with the pleadings in the plaint. However, the Courts are bound to see the entire tenor and the trustworthiness of the deposition of the witnesses and proceed accordingly. Merely showing some contradictions would not be of any avail to the defendant/ appellant to scrap the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 24. However, the Courts are bound to see the entire tenor and the trustworthiness of the deposition of the witnesses and proceed accordingly. Merely showing some contradictions would not be of any avail to the defendant/ appellant to scrap the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 24. The learned counsel for the defendant/appellant made an attempt to show certain contradictions and those contradictions are irrelevant and more specifically, this Court is of an opinion that the defendant/appellant had made an attempt to create such contradictions in order to defend his case and this Court is of an opinion that as far as the promissory note cases are concerned, once the genuinity of the promissory note is established and more specifically, the signature of the defendant/appellant in the promissory note is proved with the assistance of the Handwriting Expert, then the dates and other things may not be of much relevance. Even under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the signature is established, then the dates and other particulars in the promissory notes, cannot be a ground for disowning the amount borrowed by the defendant/appellant from the plaintiff/respondent. 25. Thus, showing certain contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, cannot be a ground to set aside the Trial Court's judgment. Predominantly, PWs 1 to 3 categorically deposed that the defendant/appellant borrowed the loan amount and executed the promissory notes. The signature of the defendant/appellant in the promissory notes is established through the Handwriting Expert. 26. This being the facts and circumstances, merely citing certain statements of the witnesses, the case of the plaintiff/ respondent cannot be destroyed at all. Therefore, the Trial Court made a correct approach in this regard and there is no perversity as such. 27. Perusal of the entire judgment of the Trial Court reveals that each and every issue has been dealt with in consonance with the principles and based on the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties to the suit. 28. This being the factum, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is in consonance with the legal principles and the Trial Court cogently considered the documents as well as the evidences produced by the parties to the civil suit and there is no infirmity as such. 29. 28. This being the factum, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is in consonance with the legal principles and the Trial Court cogently considered the documents as well as the evidences produced by the parties to the civil suit and there is no infirmity as such. 29. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2015 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in O.S.No.105 of 2004 stands confirmed and consequently, the appeal suit stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.