Mrs.Vidya Nathan vs Mrs.U.Malathy
2022 Latest Caselaw 7079 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7079 Mad
Judgement Date : 5 April, 2022

Madras High Court

Mrs.Vidya Nathan vs Mrs.U.Malathy on 5 April, 2022

                                                                                     SA.No.281/2022




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 05.04.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

                                                   SA.No.281/2022

                    Mrs.Vidya Nathan                                               .. Appellant /
                                                                                        Plaintiff

                                                            Vs.

                    1.Mrs.U.Malathy
                    2.Mr.U.Anand
                    3.Mr.U.Sathish                                                 .. Respondents
                                                                                     / Defendants


                    Prayer:- Second Appeal preferred under 100 of CPC against the judgment

                    and decree dated 20.11.2019 made in AS.No.47/2017 on the file of the

                    learned II Additional District Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet, confirming the

                    judgment and decree dated 03.04.2017 made in OS.No.665/2014 on the

                    file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Arakkonam.


                                      For Appellants    :         Mr.S.Ravichandran Sundaresan




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                             1
                                                                                        SA.No.281/2022




                                                         JUDGMENT

(1) The plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.665/2014 on the file of the Sub

Court, Arakonam, is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.

(2) The appellant filed the suit in OS.No.665/2014 for recovery of a

sum of Rs.5,15,800/- together with interest at 24% per annum on

the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Originally the suit was filed

against the 1st defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st

defendant died and defendants 2 to 4 were impleaded as the Legal

Representatives of the deceased 1st defendant.

(3) The appellant/plaintiff stated in the plaint that the 1st defendant

executed the suit Pronote dated 06.06.2003 in favour of the

husband of the plaintiff to pay on demand, the principal amount of

Rs.3 lakhs together with interest at 24% per annum. Stating that

the 1st defendant neglected to pay the amount due on the suit

pronote and the original promisee had transferred the right in

favour of plaintiff by way of an endorsement dated 30.04.2006, the

plaintiff came forward with the suit for recovery of money.

SA.No.281/2022

(4) The suit was contested by the legal heirs of the deceased 1st

defendant by denying the execution of the pronote as well as

passing of consideration under the suit pronote. It is the definite

case of the defendants that the plaintiff's husband is the brother of

the deceased 1st defendant and the suit has been filed on the basis

of a fabricated pronote as a counter blast to a suit filed by the

deceased 1st defendant for partition and separate possession of the

joint family and ancestral properties. Since the suit pronote was

described by the deceased 1st defendant as a forged document, the

Trial Court has framed a specific issue whether the plaintiff has

proved the suit pronote and whether the endorsement made by the

original promisee assigning the right under the pronote in favour of

the plaintiff is valid or not?

(5) After considering the entire pleadings and evidence in detail, the

Trial Court held that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the

execution of the pronote executed by the deceased 1st defendant.

The Trial Court also held that the plaintiff did not prove the

passing of consideration under the suit pronote. Aggrieved by the

SA.No.281/2022

judgment and decree of the Trial Court, dismissing the suit for

recovery of money, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in

AS.No.47/2017 on the file of the learned II Additional District

Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet.

(6) The Lower Appellate Court also held that the appellant/plaintiff

miserably failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1-suit pronote as

well as the endorsement under Ex.A4. The Lower Appellate Court

further held that the appellant did not prove the passing of

consideration under Ex.A1. Aggrieved by the concurrent

judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the present Second

Appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

(7) The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law

in the Memorandum of Grounds of the Second Appeal:-

a) Whether the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit when the signature of the 1st defendant in Ex.A1 Pronote is admitted and presumption as contemplated under section 118[a] of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is presumed unless and until the same is rebutted by the defendants?

SA.No.281/2022

b) Whether the Courts below are perverse in not appreciating the evidence PW1 and PW2 when the plaintiff proved the execution of Pronote by 1st defendant through E.A6 and also through cross examination of PW2?

c) Whether the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit when the defendants failed to rebut the presumption as contemplated under section 118[a] of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?'' (8) The first question of law raised by the appellant is on the

assumption that the plaintiff/appellant has let in evidence to prove

due execution of the Pronote. When the Courts below have

concurrently held that the Pronote is not proved in the manner

known of law, the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, cannot be applied. Though the

learned counsel for the appellant raised a question of law with

regard to the appreciation of evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, this

Court is unable to find any irregularity or perversity in the findings

of the Courts below on the appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence adduced by both sides. In the absence of any perversity

SA.No.281/2022

or illegality in the decisions rendered by the Courts below, this