Madras High Court
Alagu vs Bhagavathyammal on 4 February, 2022
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)No.1158 of 2017
1.Alagu
2.Uma ... Appellants/Appellants/Defendants
Vs.
Bhagavathyammal ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiff
Prayer : Second Appeal fil-0ed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 22.03.2016 passed in
A.S.No.21 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Court,
Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 01.12.2014
passed in O.S.No.70 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Subordinate
Court, Dindigul.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Hariharan
For Respondent : Mr.N.Sathishbabu
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent
Judgments and decrees, passed in O.S.No.70 of 2005 by the learned
Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul and in A.S.No.21 of 2014,
passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
herein, as per their own ranking as before the Trial Court.
3.The case of the plaintiff, as per the averments made in
the plaint, in short, is as follows :
The defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakh only) from the plaintiff and agreed to pay the same with the
interest at the rate of 1% per month and executed a pronote in favour
of the plaintiff with a promise to repay the same to the plaintiff on his
demand. The defendants failed to pay either the principal or the
interest, despite repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff had issued notice to the defendants on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
16.02.2005 calling upon them to pay the same and the same was
received by the defendants on 19.02.2005 and the defendants sent their
reply on 28.02.2005 with false allegations. Hence the suit.
4.The second defendant adopted the written statement
filed by the first defendant contending inter alia that he denied the
borrowal of the amount and the execution of pronote. The defendants
issued reply on 28.02.2005 about the real facts. The plaintiff do not
have means to lend money. The plaintiff is a binami of her husband.
The plaintiff is doing money lending business for the past 25 years.
The defendants agreed that they had various money transactions with
the plaintiff. In the year 1993, the first defendant borrowed a sum of
Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) from the plaintiff with
interest at the rate of 3% per annum and executed two pronotes and
then he paid the interest of Rs.21,600/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand
and Six Hundred only) and he further paid a sum of Rs.28,800/-
(Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred only) towards
principal and interest from the year 1994. No receipt has been issued
to that effect. Again, he borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
Lakh only) on 13.09.1996 and executed two pronotes each to the tune
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only). The first defendant paid
interest upto 1999. No receipt has been issued by them to that effect.
Thereafter, the first defendant settled the entire loan amount and
received the pronotes from the plaintiff. Again on 25.10.1999, the first
defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
from the plaintiff and executed two pronotes each worth about
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only). Thereafter, he settled the
entire loan amount and received the pronotes from the plaintiff.
5. Further, in the year 2000, the first defendant approached
the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only). The plaintiff obtained signature of the first defendant in four
bond sheets separately, as if he had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand only) from his wife on
07.09.2003 and another pronote was created in the name of his son-in-
law, Venkatraman, as if he had received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand only) from him and also
another pronote obtained in the name of the plaintiff on 10.09.2003 for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only). When the same was
questioned, the plaintiff has replied that after settling the money, he
will return the same. On 20.06.2003, the first defendant repaid a sum
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the plaintiff, but the
plaintiff refused to issue any receipt. Therefore, the first defendant had
lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul
against the plaintiff, his wife and son-in-law and after that, the plaintiff
tried to assault the first defendant and hence, another complaint was
given, for which, a complaint receipt was issued as Receipt
No.334/2004. In the enquiry, the plaintiff appeared and falsely stated
in the written statement that the first defendant has to pay a sum of
Rs.6,40,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh and Fourty Thousand only). The
defendant has paid a sum of Rs.5,35,200/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirty
Five Thousand and Two Hundred only) from the year 1993 to 2003.
6. As per Section 8 of Money Lending Act, if any excess
amount is paid, it should be adjusted in the principal. The plaintiff has
to adjust the excess amount paid by the first defendant in the principal
amount. After adjustment, the first defendant requested the plaintiff to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
return the pronotes obtained from him. The defendants filed a suit
before the District Munsif Court, Nilakkottai against the plaintiff under
the Money Lending Act. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the first
defendant before the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul, stating
that the first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Twenty Thousand only) and executed a pronote. The husband of
the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.333 of 2004 before the Principal
Subordinate Court, Dindigul, stating that the defendants have to pay a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) which was borrowed on
06.09.2002. In that suit also, he has not mentioned about the present
case. In the suits already filed in O.S.No.333 of 2004 and O.S.No.70
of 2004, it was contended that the defendants borrowed a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) in each suit from the plaintiff
and her husband. The son-in-law of the plaintiff, Venkatraman filed
another suit before the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul in
O.S.No.298 of 2004. In O.S.No.335 of 2004, it is stated that the
pronote amount is Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty
Thousand only) and in the suit in O.S.No.298 of 2004 it is stated that
the pronote amount is Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
Thousand only). The son-in-law and wife of the plaintiff are necessary
parties to the suit. They are not added as parties to the suit. Therefore,
the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendants has
not owe any amount to the plaintiff. The pronotes are fabricated one
and the same is barred by limitation. The defendants not received any
money from the plaintiff and hence, the suit has to be dismissed with
costs.
7. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, the
plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and one attested witness,
Chinnadurai and scribe Vanjimuthu were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3
and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first
defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and one Palanichamy examined
as D.W.2 and Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked.
8. On the basis of the rival pleadings on either side, the
trial Court, after framing necessary issues and after evaluating both the
oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit in favour of the
plaintiff and directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.2,61,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
(Rupees Two Lakh and Sixty One Thousand only) with 6% per annum
from the date of plaint till the date of realization for the principal
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only).
9. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the
trial Court, the defendants, as appellants, had filed an Appeal Suit in
A.S.No.21 of 2014, on the file of the learned Principal District Court,
Dindigul. The first appellate Court, after hearing both sides and upon
reappraising the evidence available on record, had dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court. Challenging the said concurrent Judgments and decrees passed
by the Courts below, the present Second Appeal has been preferred at
the instance of the defendants, as appellants.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants /
defendants would submit that the Courts below have failed to
appreciate that when the first defendant Alagu approached Kamatchi
Gowder, husband of the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh only) in the year 2000, he obtained signatures in four
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
stamped concur papers and also obtained the signature of the second
second defendant in two concur papers and by utilising the same, four
promissory notes have been fabricated by the said Kamatchi Gowder,
with the help of P.W.2 and P.W.3; that the plaintiff has not proved
through acceptable legal evidence both oral and documentary to prove
that on 06.09.2002, the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakh only) and executed Ex.A.1 pronote; that the
defendants have to prove the same by adducing rebuttal evidence that
four fabricated pronotes have been used for the purpose of filing four
suits namely, O.S.Nos.334, 335, 298 of 2004 and 70 of 2005; that the
suit in O.S. No.335 of 2004 filed by one Bagavathi was dismissed by
the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, holding that the suit
pronote in O.S.No.335 of 2004 was fabricated; when the defendants
have questioned the means of the plaintiff to lend money, she has not
adduced any documentary evidence to show her affluent position to
lend Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) to the defendants. The
Courts below have failed to follow the settled legal principles of Law
as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the High Court that
it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish his case on the basis of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
acceptable legal evidence, both oral and documentary and that the
plaintiff cannot be allowed to pickup holes in the case of the
defendants and hence, prayed to allow the Second Appeal.
11.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/
plaintiff would vehemently oppose the Second Appeal by contending
that the well considered Judgments of the Courts below need not be
interfered with, as there is no question of law involved in this Second
Appeal and prayed for dismissal of the Second Appeal.
12.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions made and also carefully perused the materials placed on
record.
13. According to the plaintiff, the defendants borrowed a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) from the plaintiff and
agreed to repay the same with the interest at the rate of 1% per month
and executed a pronote to that effect. The defendants failed to pay
either the principal or the interest, despite repeated requests.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
Therefore, the plaintiff had issued notice to the defendants on
16.02.2005 calling upon them to pay the same and the same was
received by the defendants on 19.02.2005 and the defendants sent their
reply on 28.02.2005 refusing the allegations.
14.According to the defendants, they denied the borrowal
of the amount and the execution of pronote. The plaintiff do not have
no means to lend money. The plaintiff is a binami of her husband.
The first defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand
only) in the year 1993, from the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 3%
per annum and executed two pronotes and the first defendant returned
the amount with interest. Subsequently, there were money transactions
between the plaintiff and the defendants. Though the defendants paid
the amount with interest, no receipt has been issued to them to that
effect. Therefore, the first defendant had lodged a complaint before
the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul against the plaintiff, his wife
and son-in-law and after that, the plaintiff tried to assault the first
defendant and hence, another complaint was given, for which, a
complaint receipt was issued as Receipt No.334/2004. In the enquiry,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
the plaintiff appeared and falsely stated in the written statement that
the first defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh
Fourty Thousand only). The defendant has paid a sum of Rs.5,35,200/-
(Rupees Five Lakh Thirty Five Thousand and Two Hundred only) from
the year 1993 to 2003.
15. Ex.A1 is the pronote, dated 07.09.2003, executed by
the 1st defendant to the plaintiff. Perusal of Ex.A1 would show that a
one rupee Revenue Stamp was pasted on the pronote and it was signed
as witnesss by D.W.1 and D.W.2. P.W.3 is the scribe of the pronote
and he was examined as witness on the side of the plaintiff, who
deposed that he wrote the pronote . D.W.2 in his cross-examination
deposed that the second signature contained in the pronote is of him.
One Rajavel, who signed (first signature) in the pronote, died, which
was deposed by P.W.3. Therefore, the genuinity of the pronote has
been proved by the plaintiff by examining P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3.
But, however, the defendants contended that the pronote is a created
one, which cannot be countenanced without adducing any evidence.
Further, D.W.2 examined on the side of the defendants in his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
examination deposed as follows:-
“vdf;F ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ,Ue;J
miHg;ghiz vJt[k; tutpy;iy. vdf;F
thjpapd; fzth; fhkhl;rp brhy;ypjhd; ehd;
jw;nghJ rhl;rp brhy;y te;njd;. ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F
te;J jhd; ehd; mHFtpd; tHf;fwpQiu bjhpe;J
bfhz;nld;. mHF miHj;jjpd; nghpy; ele;jij
brhy;y rhl;rpak; mspf;f te;Js;nsd;."
Further, the first defendant/D.W.2 examined on the side of the
defendants in his examination deposed as follows:-
"th.rh.M.1 Mtzj;jpy; cs;s ifbaGj;J
vd;DilaJjhd;> mij vGjg;glhj jhspy;
nghl;nld;. 2tJ ifbaGj;J vdJ
kidtpa[ilaJ jhd;." vdt[k>;
"ehd; mDg;gpa gjpy; mwptpg;ngh>
vjph;tHf;Fiuapnyh thjpapd; fzth; fhkhl;rpapd;
gpdhkp jhd; thjp vd;W brhy;ytpy;iy vd;why;
rhpjhd;. epU:gz thf;FK:yj;jpy; brhy;ypa[s;nsd;.
fhkhl;rp> fe;J tl;o bjhHpy; bra;J tUfpwhh;
vd;gijf; fhl;l Mjhuk; vJt[k; jhf;fy;
bra;atpy;iy." vdt[k>;
"thjpapd; kfs; rpj;uhtpd; jpUkzj;jpd;nghJ ehd;
U:.50>000/- brYj;jpajw;F ,urPJ jhf;fy;
bra;Js;nsdh vd;why; ,y;iy. xU thuj;jpy;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
jUtjhf brhd;dhh;fs;. Mdhy; jutpy;iy.
ehd;> vdJ ikj;Jdh; rtlKj;J> rpd;dhsg;gl;o
ma;ag;gd;> uFehj;> brl;oagl;o gt[y;uh$;
Mfpnahiu itj;J mry; bjhiff;F brYj;jpa
tl;of;F ,urPJ bfhLf;Fk; ve;j njjpapy;> vq;F
itj;J ngrg;gl;lJ vd;W epU:gz thf;FK:yj;jpy;
brhy;ytpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;." vdt[k>;
"ehd; U:.5>35>200/-I ehd; fhkhl;rpf;F
brYj;jpapUg;gjw;F ,urPJ jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy
vd;why; rhpjhd;." vdt[k>;
"ehd; fhkhl;rpia jug;gpduhd nrh;g;gjw;F ehd;
rl;l uPjpahd eltof;if vJt[k; vLf;ftpy;iy
vdt[k; Fwpg;gpl;L rhl;rpak; mzpj;Js;shh;.”
Therefore, this Court comes to a categorical conclusion that the suit
pronote is proved beyond any manner of doubt.
16. It is the case of the defendants that at the time of
borrowal of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), the husband of the
plaintiff obtained pronote in the name of plaintiff and his son-in-law.
The defendants relied upon Ex.B6, which is the xerox copy of
statement alleged to have been executed by the husband of the plaintiff
before the Police by stating that the defendants executed four pronotes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
in his favour and he had already filed a suit in the Court and he will get
relief from the Court. Perusal of Ex.B6 would show that it is not a
certified copy. Further, the defendants failed to summon the concerned
police to prove the genuineness of the same and not filed any copy of
the complaint receipt etc. It was executed only by the husband of the
plaintiff and there is no connection to the plaintiff. The statement
given to the police is not admissible in evidence. The suit was filed as
early as on 30.03.2005. If really the defendants are an affected parties,
they would have approached the police after receipt of the notice sent
by the plaintiff under Ex.A1, which was sent on 16.02.2005. However,
the defendants simply kept quite without lodging any complaint till the
filing of the suit.
17. It was contended by the plaintiff that the defendants
received Rs.6,40,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh and Fourty Thousand only)
from the plaintiff on different dates and the same have not been
returned to the plaintiff and in this regard there were three suits filed
and some ended in favour of the defendants. If it is so, the defendants
ought to have produced the pronote, which the defendants received
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
from the plaintiff to show the earlier transactions before this Court,but
not done so. It is admitted by the defendants that apart from the suit
pronote, some other pronotes have been executed by the defendants in
favour of the plaintiff. Further, the suit pronote and other four
pronotes have been scribed on the same day, is the contention of the
defendants. Without adducing any evidence, such contentions of the
plaintiff cannot be accepted. The defendants contended that the entire
amount in respect of pronote have been paid to the plaintiff. In this
regard, a mere contention of the defendant that the entire amount has
been settled in respect of the suit pronote cannot be accepted, as the
defendants have not adduced any evidence to that effect. Further, the
defendants argued that the plaintiff have no means to lend money. The
plaintiff stated that she has got a coconut grove and he is getting
income from the same and that was not rebutted by letting in any
contra evidence by the defendants. It is admitted in the written
statement that there were earlier money transactions between them and
now contradictory stand taken by the defendants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
18. In paragraph No.4 of the written statement filed on the
side of the defendants, it is seen that there were many transactions held
between the appellants and the respondent and accordingly, in the year
1993, the first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty
Thousand only), in the year 1996, the first defendant borrowed a sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) and again, in the year 1999,
the first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only) from the plaintiff and he has admitted that the plaintiff has
returned the promissory notes, as he has paid the principle as well as
interest. In the year 2000, he obtained a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh only), but the plaintiff has misused those papers is the claim
made by the defendants. That being the case, when the first defendant
has admitted that there was loan transaction, he cannot now come and
state that the plaintiff has got no means to pay the amount and he has
money transactions by obtaining loan from the plaintiff and according
to him, the plaintiff has returned the promissory note earlier. Now the
defendants come and claim that in the present case that the plaintiff has
executed four promissory notes and various cases have already been
filed and not accepted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
19. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that in
the present case, promissory note has been admitted by the defendants
and he cannot now and state a contradictory statement.
20. The further contention of the defendants that when the
defendants are not able to disprove the claim of the plaintiff by
adducing rebuttal evidence, as per Section 118 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, is concerned, at this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer
Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which reads as
follows:-
"Until the contrary is proved, the following
presumptions shall be made:-
(a) that every negotiable instrument was
made or drawn for consideration, and that every
such instrument, when it has been accepted,
indorsed negotiated or transferred, was accepted,
indorsed, negotiated or transferred for
consideration."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
21. Considering the scope of presumption under Section
118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
Judgment Kundan Lal Rallaram v. Custodian, Evacuee Property,
Bombay, reported in (AIR 1961 SC 1316) has held as under:-
“This section lays down a special rule of
evidence applicable to negotiable instruments.
The presumption is one of law and thereunder a
court shall presume, inter alia, that the negotiable
instrument or the endorsement was made or
endorsed for consideration. In effect it throws the
burden of proof of failure of consideration on the
maker of the note or the endorser, as the case may
be. The question is, how the burden can be
discharged? The rules of evidence pertaining to
burden of proof are embodied in Chapter VII of
the Evidence Act. The phrase "burden of proof'
has two meanings one the burden of proof as a
matter of law and pleading and the other the
burden of establishing a case; the former is fixed
as a question of law on the basis of the pleadings
and is unchanged during the entire trial, whereas
the latter is not constant but shifts as soon as a
party adduces sufficient evidence to raise a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
presumption in his favour. The evidence required
to shift the burden need not necessarily be direct
evidence, i.e., oral or documentary evidence or
admissions made by opposite party; it may
comprise circumstantial evidence or presumptions
of law or fact. To illustrate how this doctrine
works in practice, we may take a suit on a
promissory note. Under S.101 of the Evidence
Act, "Whoever desires any Court to give
judgment as to any legal right or liability
dependent on the existence of facts which he
asserts, must prove that those facts exist".
Therefore, the burden initially rests on the
plaintiff who has to prove that the promissory
note was executed by the defendant. As soon as
the execution of the promissory note is proved,
the rule of presumption laid down in S.118 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act helps him to shift the
burden to the other side. The burden of proof as a
question of law rests, therefore on the plaintiff;
but as soon as the execution is proved, S.118 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act imposes a duty on
the Court to raise a presumption in his favour that
the said instrument was made for consideration.
This presumption shifts the burden of proof in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
second sense, that is, the burden of establishing a
case shifts to the defendant. The defendant may
adduce direct evidence to prove that the
promissory note was not supported by
consideration and, if he adduced acceptable
evidence, the burden again shifts to the plaintiff,
and so on. The defendant may also rely upon
circumstantial evidence and, if the circumstances
so relied upon are compelling, the burden may
likewise shift again to the plaintiff. He may also
rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance those
mentioned in S.114 and other sections of
the Evidence Act. Under S.114 of the Evidence
Act, "The Court may presume the existence of
any fact which it thinks likely to have happened,
regard being had to the common course of natural
events, human conduct and public and private
business, in their relation to the facts of the
particular case." Illustration (g) to that section
shows that the Court may presume that evidence
which could be and is not produced would, if
produced, be unfavourable to the person who
withholds it. A plaintiff, who says that he had sold
certain goods to the defendant and that a
promissory note was executed as consideration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
for the goods and that he is in possession of the
relevant account books to show that he was in
possession of the goods sold and that the sale was
effected for a particular consideration, should
produce the said account books, for he is in
possession of the same and the defendant
certainly cannot be expected to produce his
documents. In those circumstances, if such a
relevant evidence is withheld by the plaintiff,
S.114 enables the Court to draw a presumption to
the effect that, if produced, the said accounts
would be unfavourable to the plaintiff. This
presumption, if raised by a court, can under
certain circumstances rebut the presumption of
law raised under S.118 of the Negotiable
instruments Act. Briefly stated, the burden of
proof may be shifted by presumptions of law or
fact, and presumptions of law or presumptions of
fact may be rebutted not only by direct or
circumstantial evidence but also by presumptions
of law or fact. We are not concerned here with
irrebuttable presumptions of law."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
22. Applying the above legal position, let us now consider
the facts of present case. PW1's evidence is to the effect that
defendants borrowed Rs.6,40,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh and Fourty
Thousand only) from the plaintiff. One Chinnadurai, who examined as
PW2, attester to Ex.A1 promissory note has also spoken about the
borrowal of the amount by the defendants and execution of Ex.A1
promissory note. Evidence required to shift the burden upon the
defendants need not necessarily be by direct evidence or oral or
documentary evidence. Evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are sufficient to raise
presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
23. In view of the forgoing discussions and the Judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (AIR 1961 SC 1316) (cited
supra) this Court is of the considered view that no questions of law
much less substantial questions of law, has been made out by the
appellants / defendants calling for interference by this Court in the
well-considered judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below
and accordingly, the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
24.In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.02.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rm
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 Principal District Court,
Dindigul.
2.The Additional Subordinate Court,
Dindigul.
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.55 of 2017
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
rm
Judgment made in
S.A(MD)No.55 of 2017
04.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
