R.Sekar vs Soundarrajan
2022 Latest Caselaw 8750 Mad

                                                                                  SA.No.268/2018




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 26.04.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

                                        SA.No.268/2018 & CMP.No.6790/2018

                    R.Sekar                                                       .. Appellant /
                                                                                     Defendant

                                                            Vs.

                    Soundarrajan                                                  .. Respondent
                                                                                  / Plaintiff


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

                    and decree in AS.No.4/2017 dated 05.12.2017 passed by the learned Sub

                    Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District, confirming the judgment and decree in

                    OS.No.9/2014 dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned District Munsif,

                    Ranipet, Vellore District.


                                      For Appellant     :         Mr.C.Prakasam

                                      For Respondent    :         Mr.P.Mani




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                             1
                                                                                          SA.No.268/2018




                                                           JUDGMENT

(1) The defendant in the suit in OS.No.59/2014 on the file of the

learned District Munsif, Ranipet, Vellore District, is the appellant in

the above Second Appeal.

(2) The respondent herein, as plaintiff filed the suit in OS.No.59/2014

for recovery of a sum of Rs.92,280/- being the principal sum and

interest @ 24% per annum on Rs.44,000/- from the date of

execution of Pronote till the date of suit.

(3) The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the defendant borrowed

a sum of Rs.44,000/- on 13.08.2008 and executed the suit Pronote

agreeing to repay the amount with the interest @ 24% per annum.

It is also stated in the plaint that a sum of Rs.5000/- was paid on

10.08.2011 towards the amount due on the Pronote and an

endorsement was also made in the suit Pronote on 10.08.2011. A

similar endorsement was also pleaded on 28.05.2012 upon

payment of a further sum of Rs.4500/-. It is the case of the plaintiff

that the defendant did not repay the amount due on the Pronote

despite several demands.

SA.No.268/2018

(4) The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written

statement specifically denying the averments made in the plaint.

The defendant disputed the execution of the Pronote and the

amount stated to have been borrowed by the defendant from the

plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. It is the specific case of the

defendant that the suit Pronote is a fabricated document as the

defendant never borrowed any money from the plaintiff. The

further payment and the subsequent endorsements dated

10.08.2011 and 28.05.2012 was also specifically denied in the

written statement. Stating that the suit Pronote is not supported by

any consideration, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(5) The Trial Court, after framing necessary issues and after

considering the pleadings and evidence, found that the defendant

himself has admitted his signature in Ex.A1-suit Pronote. Since the

signature of the defendant in the suit Pronote is admitted, the Trial

Court held that the passing of consideration can be presumed in

view of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The

SA.No.268/2018

plaintiff though issued a suit notice, there was no reply by the

defendant before filing of suit. Considering all these circumstances,

the Trial Court held that the plaintiff has proved his case and hence,

decreed the suit as prayed for.

(6) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the

defendant preferred an appeal in As.No.4/2017 on the file of the

learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet at Vellore.

(7) The Lower Appellate Court considered the pleadings and evidence

independently and held that the burden lies on the appellant to

prove that the suit Pronote was not for consideration and that it was

forged. The Lower Appellate Court also relied upon the evidence of

defendant himself to the effect that the signature found in Ex.A1 is

his signature. Though the learned counsel for the appellant before

the Lower Appellate Court raised a plea that suit Pronote is a

forged one, the Lower Appellate Court observed that the appellant

did not take any steps to send the Pronote for expert opinion.

Having considered the overall circumstances and the evidence of

defendant himself admitting his signature in the suit Pronote, the

SA.No.268/2018

Lower Appellate Court also held that the plaintiff has proved the

due execution of Pronote as well as the acknowledgments by

paying some money by the appellant/defendant as endorsed in the

document-Ex.A1. After confirming the findings of the Trial Court,

the appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the concurrent

findings and the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the

present Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant / defendant.

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

in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal:-

(9) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts

below have believed the execution of the suit Pronote dated

13.08.2008 without considering the overall evidence and the

pleadings of respective parties. It is submitted by the learned

counsel that the execution of the Pronote and passing of

consideration was specifically denied by the appellant in the written

statement and hence, the Courts below ought to have held that the

burden lies on the respondent/plaintiff to prove at least passing of

consideration. The learned counsel then submitted that the

SA.No.268/2018

endorsements made in the suit Pronote were not admitted by the

appellant and that the Courts below ought to have held that the suit

is barred by limitation as the endorsements were forged only to save

limitation.

(10) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that

the findings of the Courts below regarding proof of execution of

Pronote cannot be assailed as the Courts below have considered the

pleadings as well as the documents in extenso. The learned counsel

then pointed out that the appellant/defendant himself has admitted

his signature in the suit Pronote under Ex.A1 and therefore, there

cannot be a challenge to the findings that the suit Pronote was

executed by the appellant/defendant.

(11) This Court has considered the arguments made on both sides and

perused the materials placed before it including the findings of the

Courts below which are after appreciation of the entire evidence in

the light of pleadings.

(12) As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the

SA.No.268/2018

appellant/defendant has admitted his signature in the document-

Ex.A1. Once the execution of Pronote is admitted, it is possible for

the Courts below to presume passing of consideration in view of the

statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The Courts below have rightly held that the suit

Pronote executed by the appellant is supported by consideration as

recited in the Pronote. No doubt, it is true that the suit is filed three

years after the Pronote. However, the respondent specifically relied

upon the endorsements made by the appellant acknowledging the

debt. In the course of evidence, the document-Ex.A1 was shown

and the appellant/defendant has not specifically disputed his

signatures below the endorsements. The endorsements

acknowledging the debt gives an indication that the period of

limitation is saved by such acknowledgment of debt as permissible

in law. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the suit is barred by limitation cannot be sustained.

(13) Having regard to the admission of the appellant / defendant that the

SA.No.268/2018

appellant is the author of the signature found in Ex.A1, this Court

is unable to find any force in any of the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellant.

(14) As observed earlier, the Courts below have considered the

pleadings, documents and evidence in a proper manner and

rendered findings which are supported by reasons. Since this Court

is unable to find any irregularity either in the decision or in the

decision making process, is not inclined to interfere with the

findings of the Courts below.

(15) In the result, the Second Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

26.04.2022 AP Internet : Yes

SA.No.268/2018

To

1.The Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District.

2.The District Munsif Ranipet, Vellore District.

3.The Section Officer VR Section, High Court Chennai.

SA.No.268/2018

S.S.SUNDAR, J.,

AP

SA.No.268/2018

26.04.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10