Madras High Court
T. Annadurai vs P. Kaliyan on 21 April, 2022
S.A.No. 20 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.No.20 of 2012
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012
T. Annadurai ... Appellant
Vs
P. Kaliyan ... Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside
the Judgment and Decree dated 10.08.2011 in A.S.No.37 of 2010 on the
file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court III),
Virdhachalam confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 16.02.2010 in
O.S.No.34 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Neyveli.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Paramasiva Doss
For Respondent : Mr.V.Anand
JUDGMENT
The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of
recovery of money with interest.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No. 20 of 2012
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay back with interest.
The defendant also executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff
on 01.01.2007, marked as Ex.A1. Since, the defendant did not repay
back the amount. A notice was issued on 09.02.2009 calling upon the
defendant to repay back the amount with interest. This notice was
marked as Ex.A3. A reply notice was sent by the defendant on
09.03.2009 by denying the liability and the reply was marked as Ex.A4.
Left with no other option, the suit came to be filed against the defendant
for recovery of money.
4. The defendant filed a written statement and took a stand that
the plaintiff and the defendant are working in Neyveli Lignite
Corporation and both of them are know well to each other. It is stated
that the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 2008 from
the Co-operative Society attached to the Neyveli Lignite Corporation and
the defendant stood as a surety. While so, the plaintiff obtained
signatures in blank papers from the defendant. According to the
defendant, this was misused by the plaintiff and a false claim was made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No. 20 of 2012
against the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant sought for dismissal
of the suit.
5. Both the Court below, on considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, concurrently held in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit
as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed this
second appeal.
6. Heard, Mr.P.Paramasiva Doss, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. V.Anand, learned counsel for the respondent. This
Court carefully went through the materials available on record and the
findings of both the Courts below.
7. Both the Courts below came to a conclusion that the defendant
had admitted the signature found in Ex.A1. In view of the same, the
Courts invoked under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
the burden was shifted to the defendant to prove his defence. Both the
Courts found that except for the ipse dixit of the defendant, there was
absolutely no proof adduced by the defendant to establish that he had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No. 20 of 2012
signed as surety for the loan secured by the plaintiff from the Society and
this signature was misused by the plaintiff.
8. Both the Courts below also dealt with yet another defence
taken by the defendant to the effect that he had signed in a blank
promissory note. The Courts took into consideration Section 20 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and held that even inchoate instruments can
be acted upon where the signature has been admitted and onus is upon
the defendant to prove that he did not receive any consideration. Both
the Courts below found that the defendant did not discharge his onus
also.
9. The Trial Court relied upon various reported decisions to
support its findings. The Appellate Court also rendered independent
findings on the grounds raised in the appeal.
10. In the considered view of this Court, the findings of both the
Courts below does not suffer from any perversity and does not deserve
the inference of this Court. In any event, no substantial question of law
is involved in this second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No. 20 of 2012
11. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
21.04.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Lpp
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court III),
Virdhachalam
2.The Subordinate Judge, Neyveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No. 20 of 2012
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Lpp
S.A.No.20 of 2012
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012
21.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
