High Court · 2025

S.A.No.524 of 2011IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHIS.A.No.524 of 2011Jayamary … Appellant / Plaintiff vs.Duraisamy … Respondent / Defendant PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.4 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Virdhachalam dated 24.08.2010 confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.198 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Virdhachalam dated 16.11.2009.For Appellant : Mrs.V.Srimathi For Respondent : Mr.L.PalanimuthuJUDGMENTBeing aggrieved by order of dismissal dated 24.08.2010 passed by the Additional Sub-Court, Virdhachalam in A.S.No.4 of 2010, the plaintiff herein has preferred this Second Appeal.

2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 20113. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

4. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.07.2004 in order to discharge his debts and executed a promissory note to that effect, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the plaintiff herein. Despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff, as the defendant did not make any payment either towards principal or interest, legal notice was caused to be issued by the plaintiff to the defendant on 22.01.2007. On receipt of legal notice, the defendant did not issue any reply for the same. As the defendant did not repay either principal or interest, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the said money.

5. Contending contra, the defendant stated that it is incorrect to state that the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- on 05.07.2004 and executed a promissory note and agreed to repay the same along with 12% interest p.a. The defendant borrowed Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff's son Gnanajeya Selvakumar in July 1996 at the rate of 18% p.a., and executed two blank pronotes for the same. The defendant paid the principal amount with interest to the plaintiff's son on 03.07.1997. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 20116. After discharging the said debt amount, the plaintiff's son did not return the two blank pronotes executed by the defendant: he was told that the said pronotes are lost: after which he issued discharge receipt on 03.07.1997 and died in the year 2000. After the death of Gnanajeya Selvakumar, his father approached the defendant to pay the debt amount. The defendant told him that he already discharged the debt amount borrowed from Gnanajeya Selvakumar and showed him the discharge receipt issued by his son. The plaintiff refused to accept the said details and demanded for the repayment. On his refusal, the plaintiff filled up the blank pronotes executed by the defendant to the deceased Gnanajeya Selvakumar and filed the suit. Suit pronote is of the year 1996. The defendant did not put any signature in the suit pronote as alleged by the plaintiff. The suit pronote is not supported by consideration.

7. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for the suit claim?

2. Whether the claim of the defendant that the plaintiff has filed the blank signed pronote given by this defendant to the plaintiff's son in the year 1996 July and has filed this suit is true?3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 20113. Whether the claim of the defendant that he borrowed only Rs.15,000/- from the son of plaintiff, after giving two signed blank pronotes to him in July 1996 and that he had discharged the loan is true?

4. Whether the cause of action is true one?

5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

8. At trial, to substantiate the plaint details, on the plaintiff side two witnesses were examined and three documents were marked. Ex.A1 is pronote dated 05.07.2004 for an amount of Rs.60,000/-. On the side of defendant, two witnesses were examined. Discharge receipt issued by Gnanajeya Selvakumar, dated 03.07.1997 is Ex.B1. The trial Court relying upon the testimony of PW1 and the evidence of DW2 came to the conclusion that presumption arose in favour of the plaintiff as per Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act: it was suitably rebutted and chose to dismiss the suit.

9. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before Additional Sub-Court, Virdhachalam in A.S.No.4 of 2010 and upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the First Appellate Court also came to a conclusion that the plaintiff's case was not acceptable and believable and chose to dismiss the 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 2011appeal.

10. Execution of the pronote is admitted by the defendant. Once signature found in the pronote is admitted by the defendant, presumption arises in favour of the plaintiff under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said presumption is rebuttable. As per Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, defendant may rebut the presumption by means of either oral or documentary evidence, even through circumstantial evidence.

11. As per the pleadings found in the written statement, the defendant has examined DW2 who has signed as a witness in the suit pronote as well as in Ex.B1 discharge receipt issued by the plaintiff's son deceased Gnanajaya Selvakumar. It is the evidence of DW2 that he signed as a witness in two blank pronotes executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff's son Gnanajaya Selvakumar in the year 1996 for an amount of Rs.15,000/- borrowed by the defendant in his presence. He would also state that at the request of the deceased plaintiff's son he signed as a guarantor in the pronote executed by the defendant. He would also state that the defendant repaid the amount of Rs.15,000/- with interest to the deceased Gnanajaya Selvakumar in his presence. As the two blank 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 2011pronotes were lost, the said Gnanajaya Selvakumar executed a discharge receipt for the amount received from the defendant and in which he has also signed as a witness in Ex.B1.

12. But, when PW1 was in the box, she has not whispered about the signature of DW2 found in Ex.A1. As regards DW2 and about his signature found in Ex.A1 and Ex.B1, PW1 has given inconsistent answers. It is pertinent to note that PW1 and PW2 scribe of promissory note / Ex.A1 would uniformly state that except PW1, PW2 and the defendant, no other person was present at the time of execution of suit promissory note. But, the defendant has established the fact that at the time of discharging the debt of plaintiff's son, he signed in two blank pronotes in which DW2 signed as a guarantor (Ex.A1). The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have analysed the testimony let in by either side and have come to conclusion that the defendant has suitably rebutted the presumption arose under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and non-suited the plaintiff. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

13. Based on the aforestated observations and discussions, this Second Appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 201124.08.2010 passed by the Additional Sub-Court, Virdhachalam in A.S.No.4 of 2010 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.25.04.2025Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking orderssnTo:1. The Additional Sub-Court, Virdhachalam.

2. The II Additional District Munsif, Virdhachalam.

3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai.R.KALAIMATHI, J.,ssnS.A.No.524 of 20117/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 201125.04.20258/8

S.A.No.524 of 2011IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHIS.A.No.524 of 2011Jayamary … Appellant / Plaintiff vs.Duraisamy … Respondent / Defendant PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.4 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Virdhachalam dated 24.08.2010 confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.198 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Virdhachalam dated 16.11.2009.For Appellant : Mrs.V.Srimathi For Respondent : Mr.L.PalanimuthuJUDGMENTBeing aggrieved by order of dismissal dated 24.08.2010 passed by the Additional Sub-Court, Virdhachalam in A.S.No.4 of 2010, the plaintiff herein has preferred this Second Appeal.

2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 20113. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

4. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.07.2004 in order to discharge his debts and executed a promissory note to that effect, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the plaintiff herein. Despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff, as the defendant did not make any payment either towards principal or interest, legal notice was caused to be issued by the plaintiff to the defendant on 22.01.2007. On receipt of legal notice, the defendant did not issue any reply for the same. As the defendant did not repay either principal or interest, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the said money.

5. Contending contra, the defendant stated that it is incorrect to state that the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- on 05.07.2004 and executed a promissory note and agreed to repay the same along with 12% interest p.a. The defendant borrowed Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff's son Gnanajeya Selvakumar in July 1996 at the rate of 18% p.a., and executed two blank pronotes for the same. The defendant paid the principal amount with interest to the plaintiff's son on 03.07.1997. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 20116. After discharging the said debt amount, the plaintiff's son did not return the two blank pronotes executed by the defendant: he was told that the said pronotes are lost: after which he issued discharge receipt on 03.07.1997 and died in the year 2000. After the death of Gnanajeya Selvakumar, his father approached the defendant to pay the debt amount. The defendant told him that he already discharged the debt amount borrowed from Gnanajeya Selvakumar and showed him the discharge receipt issued by his son. The plaintiff refused to accept the said details and demanded for the repayment. On his refusal, the plaintiff filled up the blank pronotes executed by the defendant to the deceased Gnanajeya Selvakumar and filed the suit. Suit pronote is of the year 1996. The defendant did not put any signature in the suit pronote as alleged by the plaintiff. The suit pronote is not supported by consideration.

7. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for the suit claim?

2. Whether the claim of the defendant that the plaintiff has filed the blank signed pronote given by this defendant to the plaintiff's son in the year 1996 July and has filed this suit is true?3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 20113. Whether the claim of the defendant that he borrowed only Rs.15,000/- from the son of plaintiff, after giving two signed blank pronotes to him in July 1996 and that he had discharged the loan is true?

4. Whether the cause of action is true one?

5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

8. At trial, to substantiate the plaint details, on the plaintiff side two witnesses were examined and three documents were marked. Ex.A1 is pronote dated 05.07.2004 for an amount of Rs.60,000/-. On the side of defendant, two witnesses were examined. Discharge receipt issued by Gnanajeya Selvakumar, dated 03.07.1997 is Ex.B1. The trial Court relying upon the testimony of PW1 and the evidence of DW2 came to the conclusion that presumption arose in favour of the plaintiff as per Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act: it was suitably rebutted and chose to dismiss the suit.

9. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before Additional Sub-Court, Virdhachalam in A.S.No.4 of 2010 and upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the First Appellate Court also came to a conclusion that the plaintiff's case was not acceptable and believable and chose to dismiss the 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 2011appeal.

10. Execution of the pronote is admitted by the defendant. Once signature found in the pronote is admitted by the defendant, presumption arises in favour of the plaintiff under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said presumption is rebuttable. As per Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, defendant may rebut the presumption by means of either oral or documentary evidence, even through circumstantial evidence.

11. As per the pleadings found in the written statement, the defendant has examined DW2 who has signed as a witness in the suit pronote as well as in Ex.B1 discharge receipt issued by the plaintiff's son deceased Gnanajaya Selvakumar. It is the evidence of DW2 that he signed as a witness in two blank pronotes executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff's son Gnanajaya Selvakumar in the year 1996 for an amount of Rs.15,000/- borrowed by the defendant in his presence. He would also state that at the request of the deceased plaintiff's son he signed as a guarantor in the pronote executed by the defendant. He would also state that the defendant repaid the amount of Rs.15,000/- with interest to the deceased Gnanajaya Selvakumar in his presence. As the two blank 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 2011pronotes were lost, the said Gnanajaya Selvakumar executed a discharge receipt for the amount received from the defendant and in which he has also signed as a witness in Ex.B1.

12. But, when PW1 was in the box, she has not whispered about the signature of DW2 found in Ex.A1. As regards DW2 and about his signature found in Ex.A1 and Ex.B1, PW1 has given inconsistent answers. It is pertinent to note that PW1 and PW2 scribe of promissory note / Ex.A1 would uniformly state that except PW1, PW2 and the defendant, no other person was present at the time of execution of suit promissory note. But, the defendant has established the fact that at the time of discharging the debt of plaintiff's son, he signed in two blank pronotes in which DW2 signed as a guarantor (Ex.A1). The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have analysed the testimony let in by either side and have come to conclusion that the defendant has suitably rebutted the presumption arose under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and non-suited the plaintiff. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

13. Based on the aforestated observations and discussions, this Second Appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 201124.08.2010 passed by the Additional Sub-Court, Virdhachalam in A.S.No.4 of 2010 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.25.04.2025Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking orderssnTo:1. The Additional Sub-Court, Virdhachalam.

2. The II Additional District Munsif, Virdhachalam.

3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai.R.KALAIMATHI, J.,ssnS.A.No.524 of 20117/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.524 of 201125.04.20258/8