Madras High Court
K.Gomathy Nayagam vs R.Chandran on 26 April, 2021
S.A.(MD)No.820 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.820 of 2012
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012
K.Gomathy Nayagam ... Appellant
Vs.
R.Chandran ... Respondent
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.79 of 2010 passed by the Sub Court,
Ambasamuthiram, dated 17.07.2012, confirming the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.238 of 2007 passed by the Additional District Munsif Court,
Ambasamuthiram, dated 05.01.2010.
For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.RT.Arivu Kumar
For Mr.R.Manimaran.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
S.A.(MD)No.820 of 2012
JUDGEMENT
The defendant in O.S.No.238 of 2007 on the file of the Additional
District Munsif Court, Ambasamuthiram is the appellant in this second appeal.
2.The respondent/R.Chandran filed the said suit on the strength of
Ex.A.1/promissory note dated 12.07.1999. The case of the respondent is that
on 01.07.1999, the appellant herein borrowed a sum of Rs.47,000/- and
executed the suit promissory note. The appellant had promised to repay the
same on demand. Since the appellant evaded in making the payment, the
plaintiff issued Ex.A.2/notice. The appellant received the same and gave a
reply denying the stand taken by the plaintiff. Therefore, the said suit came to
be instituted. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one of the attesting
witnesses as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. The defendant examined
himself as D.W.1 and one Ramasamy as D.W.2. No documentary evidence was
adduced by the defendant.
3.The Trial Munsif by judgment and decree dated 05.01.2010 decreed the
suit as prayed for and directed the defendant to repay the sum of Rs.47,000/-
with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of plaint till the date of decree and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.820 of 2012
at the rate of 6% from the date of decree till the date of realization.
Questioning the same, the defendant filed A.S.No.79 of 2010 before the Sub
Court, Ambasamuthiram. By judgment and decree dated 17.07.2012, the
appeal was dismissed. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be
filed.
4.Though the second appeal was filed way back in November, 2012, only
notice was ordered on 22.11.2012 and it has not been formally admitted. The
learned counsel for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the
memorandum of grounds and wanted this Court to admit the second appeal by
framing appropriate substantial questions of law. He submitted that the
defendant never borrowed the suit promissory note amount from the plaintiff.
According to him, the parties had undertaken some joint venture and since the
same did not fructify, the plaintiff obtained the promissory note under threat
and coercion. He also stated that the defendant had given a police complaint
in this regard. Since no consideration passed under Ex.A.1/promissory note, he
wanted this Court to reverse the decisions of the Court below.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no
substantial question of law has arisen for consideration and wanted this Court
to dismiss the second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.820 of 2012
6.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through evidence
on record. It is must be noted at the out side that the signature found in
Ex.A.1/promissory note has been admitted by the appellant herein. The case of
the appellant is that suit promissory note was obtained under threat and
coercion. Even according to the defendant, the promissory note is dated
12.07.1999. The suit came to be filed only in March 2000. Nothing prevented
the appellant/defendant to send a letter or communication demanding return of
the promissory note. If the defendant had been subjected to threat and
coercion, he could have given a police complaint. On the side of the defendant,
no documentary evidence has been adduced. Only after the suit notice/Ex.A.2
was issued, Ex.A.3/reply notice was issued. The defendant had not taken any
step in the first instance. On the other hand, the plaintiff had examined one of
the attesting witnesses to prove the due execution of the promissory note.
Since the signature found in Ex.A.1/promissory note has been admitted, the
Court below rightly drew the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The appellant had not at all rebutted the said presumption. As
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, no substantial
question of law arises for determination in this second appeal. I do not find
any ground to interfere with the decisions of the Court below and the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.820 of 2012
appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
26.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1.The Sub Court,
Ambasamuthiram.
2.The Additional District Munsif Court,
Ambasamuthiram.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.820 of 2012
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
S.A.(MD)No.820 of 2012
26.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
