Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1925 (MAD)

Purushothaman v. Nedumaran

2025-04-04

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : ( N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.) Challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, decreeing the suit on the basis of Promissory Notes, for recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of suit till the decree and thereafter, 6% interest till the date of realization, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 03.02.2018 and executed a Promissory Note agreeing to pay the amount with monthly interest at Rs.1/- per Rs.100/- and also borrowed another Rs.7,00,000/- on 08.03.2018 agreeing to pay the monthly interest at Rs.1/- per Rs.100/- and executed another Promissory Note. Despite repeated demand, the amount has not been paid and hence, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 16.10.2019, inspite of which, the defendant has not shown any interest to pay the amount. 4. The defendant has filed a written statement, contending that he never borrowed any amount or executed Pronotes. According to him, 10 years back, he was a subscriber to the Chit run by the plaintiff and he joined Rs.5,00,000/- chit and he was a successful bidder in 15 th chit and at that time, the plaintiff has obtained his signatures in two pronotes and two blank papers. After the transaction is over, when the defendant requested the return of documents, the plaintiff assured that the documents have been misplaced and as soon as documents are traced, the same would be handed to the defendant. It is further contended that the defendant owned a property, which is situated adjacent to the property of the plaintiff and the defendant attempted to sell the property for his personal need, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to sell the property to him for a lesser price. Since the defendant refused to sell the property to the plaintiff for the lower price, the Pronotes have been misused by the plaintiff and a suit has been filed. According to the defendant, the Pronotes have been fabricated. In the additional written statement, similar stand has been taken by the defendant. 5. The Trial Court, based on the above pleadings framed the following issues: i) Whether the Pronotes dated 03.02.2018 and 08.03.2018 are true and valid? According to the defendant, the Pronotes have been fabricated. In the additional written statement, similar stand has been taken by the defendant. 5. The Trial Court, based on the above pleadings framed the following issues: i) Whether the Pronotes dated 03.02.2018 and 08.03.2018 are true and valid? ii) Whether the plaintiff has been running a chit transaction? iii) Whether the defendant was a member of the chit? iv) Whether the plaintiff is liable for return of the chit amount to the defendant? v) Whether the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff? vi) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 6. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 were marked. 7. The Trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, decreed the suit. Challenging the same, the instant appeal has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly submit that the execution of Promissory Notes under Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 has not been proved in the manner known to law and those Pronotes are forged one. The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective. In the evidence, P.W.2, one of the attesting witnesses deposed that the Pronotes were executed in the garden of P.W.3, whereas P.W.3 stated in his evidence that Pronotes were executed in his house. These contradictions clearly show that the Pronotes are not true and valid. Further, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 himself admitted that he was running a Chit Company and the same probabilizes the defendant's case that only blank Pronotes have been obtained. Hence, it was argued that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and decreed suit. 9. Whereas learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent herein would contend that the plaintiff has not only proved the execution of Pronotes, but also passing of consideration. The contrary stand taken by the defendant himself indicates that no material has been placed to disprove the legal presumption attached to the pronotes. The defendant has duly admitted the signature and execution has also been proved. Therefore, the legal presumption available to the pronotes will get attracted, which has not been dislodged by the defendant. The contrary stand taken by the defendant himself indicates that no material has been placed to disprove the legal presumption attached to the pronotes. The defendant has duly admitted the signature and execution has also been proved. Therefore, the legal presumption available to the pronotes will get attracted, which has not been dislodged by the defendant. The Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit, which does not warrant any interference by this Court 10. In the light of the above, the points for consideration in this appeal are as follows: i) Whether the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 / pronotes dated 03.02.2018 and 08.03.2018 has been proved in the manner known to law?; ii) Whether the defendant has brought out probabilities to dislodge the legal presumption attached to the Negotiable Instruments? POINTS: 11. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that P.W.1 has spoken about the execution of Pronotes by the defendant and also borrowal of amounts on two occasions, namely, 03.02.2018 and 08.03.2018. The 1 st pronote marked as Ex.A1 is dated 03.02.2018 and the date of 2 nd pronote under Ex.A2 is 08.03.2018. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the amounts of Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- have been borrowed in different dates and two different pronotes have been executed by the defendant after borrowal of the amounts. P.W.2, one of the attesting witnesses has also spoken about the execution of documents. P.W.3, who is a Scribe has also supported the version of P.W.2. 12. The defence of the defendant is that the pronotes have never been executed by him and on the other hand, during chit transaction, he became the successful bidder in one of the chits and at that time, blank pronotes have been obtained only in the chit transaction. However, no material evidence whatsoever has been placed on record by the defendant to substantiate his contention. Except the oral evidence, no further material by way of admission has been brought on record to probabilizes his case that blank pronotes under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 have been obtained at the time of chit transaction. In the absence of any probabilities, mere oral submissions or pleadings will not be sufficient to dislodge the legal presumption attached to the pronotes. Except the oral evidence, no further material by way of admission has been brought on record to probabilizes his case that blank pronotes under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 have been obtained at the time of chit transaction. In the absence of any probabilities, mere oral submissions or pleadings will not be sufficient to dislodge the legal presumption attached to the pronotes. Once the execution of pronotes is proved, the legal presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to the pronotes as to the time and consideration. Of course, statutory presumption is a rebuttable one. If the defendant is able to bring out any material either by way of direct evidence or by way of admission in the cross examination of witnesses, the burden once again shifts on the plaintiff to show that there was a proper consideration. Therefore, to shift the burden or otherwise to dislodge the legal presumption, there must be some materials to be brought on record by the defendant. 13. On perusal of the cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, except mere denial, no material whatsoever has been brought on record to dislodge the legal presumption. Much emphasis has been made to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 to the extent that P.W.2 has clearly stated that the pronotes have been executed in the garden of P.W.3, whereas P.W.3, in his evidence, deposed that pronotes have been executed in his house. It is relevant to note that those contradictions in the evidence will not affect the execution itself. The question whether the pronotes have been executed either in the garden or house will not make any difference, since the house Garden always attached to house. Except pleadings in the written statement that blank pronotes have been obtained during chit transaction, no material whatsoever has been brought on record to prove the same. Though the plaintiff has admitted that he was running a chit for sometime, it is the specific stand of the plaintiff that the defendant was never a member of chit at any point of time. According to the plaintiff, the amount was paid independently on execution of pronotes. The evidence of the plaintiff has not been denied by the defendant and hence, the defendant has not brought on record any material to dislodge the legal presumption attached to the pronotes. According to the plaintiff, the amount was paid independently on execution of pronotes. The evidence of the plaintiff has not been denied by the defendant and hence, the defendant has not brought on record any material to dislodge the legal presumption attached to the pronotes. Moreover, no material has been placed to show that he was a member of chit transaction allegedly run by the plaintiff. As long as the very signatures in the pronotes are admitted by the defendant in the written statement and even assuming that blank pronotes have been obtained by the plaintiff, the holder is entitled to fill up the blank pronotes as per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Whereas in this case, the plaintiff has clearly proved the execution of pronotes by examining witnesses and thus, the contention raised by the defendant to that effect cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the points are answered. 14. In the result, finding no merits in the appeal, the instant Appeal Suit is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.