Subordinate Judge'S Court vs .
2021 Latest Caselaw 12239 Mad

                                                                              S.A.No.1667 of 2003
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 23.06.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

                                                     S.A.No.1667 of 2003

                     N.Ramachandran                                                    ...Appellan
                     t
                                                             vs.

                     1.S.Geetha
                     2.R.Shankar
                     ...Respondents

                     Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, against the
                     Judgment and Decree dated 7.4.2003 made in A.S.No.49 of 2002 on the
                     file of the District Court, Udhagamandalam confirming the Judgment and
                     decree dated 10.7.2002 made in O.S.No.138 of 2000 on the file of the
                     Subordinate Judge's Court, Udhagamandalam.
                                    For Appellants         : Mr.Mukunth
                                                             for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

                                    For Respondents        : Mr.T.Girish for R1 & R2
                                                             for Mr.Srinath Sridevan

                                                        JUDGMENT

(This case was heard through Video Conferencing) This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent

findings of the Courts below.

2.The Appellant is the plaintiff in the Suit O.S.No.138 of 2000 on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.No.1667 of 2003 the file of the Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam. He filed a Suit for

recovery of Rs.61,400/- together with further interest against the

respondents/defendants based on a promissory note dated 05.03.1999

allegedly executed by the respondents/defendants.

3.It is the case of the Appellant/plaintiff as seen from the plaint that

the respondents/defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from him by

executing a promissory note dated 05.03.1999. However, as seen from

the written statement, the same has been disputed by the

respondents/defendants as according to them, the Appellant/plaintiff was

a tenant under them and he has misused certain blank papers and has

claimed the same to be a promissory note.

4.The Trial Court under Judgment and Decree dated 10.07.2002 in

O.S.No.138 of 2000 partly decreed the suit in favour of the

Appellant/plaintiff by directing the respondents/defendants to pay

Rs.220/- to the Appellant/plaintiff instead of Rs.50,000/- together with

interest as claimed in the plaint.

5.Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal

before the District Court in Udagamandalam in A.S.No.49 of 2002. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.No.1667 of 2003 Lower Appellate Court based on the materials and evidence available on

record and after giving due consideration to the judgment and decree

passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.138 of 2000 confirming the findings

of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and decree

dated 07.04.2003.

6.Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, this

Second Appeal has been filed.

7.Heard Mr.Mukunth, learned counsel for the Appellant and

Mr.T.Girish, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

8.The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on the following

substantial questions of law:

(a) Whether the courts below are correct in law in casting the onus

on the appellant to prove passing of consideration especially when the

respondents have admitted the execution of (Ex.A-1) promissory note.

(b)Whether the courts below are in error in misconstruing the

provisions of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(c)Is not the findings of the courts below contrary to the evidence https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.No.1667 of 2003 on record and therefore perverse?

9.The Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court based on

the materials and evidence available on record have categorically given a

finding that the Appellant/plaintiff has not proved his case. As seen from

the said findings, the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court has

held that the Appellant/plaintiff failed to establish that he had lent a sum

of Rs.50,000/- to the respondents/defendants under a promissory note

dated 05.03.1999. As seen from the pleadings of the

respondents/defendants as well as from their evidence through deposition

of DW1 to DW3, the respondents/defendants have taken a categorical

stand that the Appellant/plaintiff who is the tenant of the

respondents/defendants have misused the blank papers and has falsely

claimed that the respondents/defendants had executed promissory note

dated 05.03.1999 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in his favour.

10.Before the Tribunal, the Appellant/plaintiff had filed 7

documents which were marked as Exs.A1 to A7 and 2 witnesses were

examined on his side namely PW1 and PW2. On the side of the

respondents/defendants, 5 documents were filed which was marked as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.No.1667 of 2003 Exs.B1 to B5 and 4 witnesses were examined namely DW1 to DW4.

11.The respondents/defendants have filed documents before the

Tribunal to establish that they never borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from

the Appellant/plaintiff and an independent witness was also examined

who was a retired constable as witness on the side of the

respondents/defendants to substantiate their defence that they never

borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 05.03.1999 as claimed by the

Appellant/plaintiff.

12.While that be so, it is for the Appellant/plaintiff to substantiate

their case by letting in oral and documentary evidence to prove that the

respondents/defendants had infact borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from

him on 05.03.1999 which he has miserably failed to do so before the

Courts below.

13.The burden lies with the Appellant/plaintiff to prove that the

respondents/defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 05.03.1999 in

view of the fact that the respondents/defendants by their pleadings as well

as the documentary evidence placed before the Courts below have

established that they never borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.No.1667 of 2003 Appellant/plaintiff.

14.Sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act applies to

the plaintiff and since he has miserably failed to discharge his burden, this

Court is of the considered view that the Courts below have rightly

rejected the claim of the Appellant/plaintiff.

15.This Court has also perused and examined the materials and

evidence available on record and is of the considered view that the Courts

below have rightly appreciated the same and has rightly disbelieved the

entire claim of the Appellant/plaintiff in the suit.

16.There are no substantial questions of law involved in this

Second Appeal as the questions of law raised by the Appellant have been

adequately considered by the Courts below. The grounds raised by the

Appellant in this Second Appeal are only factual issues which have been

adequately considered by the Courts below. The substantial questions of

law formulated by this Court on 09.10.2000 are therefore answered

against the Appellant/plaintiff as he has failed to discharge his burden of

proving his case that the respondents/defendants borrowed a sum of

Rs.50,000/- on 05.03.1999 by executing a promissory note. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.No.1667 of 2003

17.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view

that there is no merit in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second

Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

23.06.2021

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order pam

To

1.The District Court, Udhagamandalam.

2.The Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.No.1667 of 2003 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

pam

S.A.No.1667 of 2003

23.06.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/