Madras High Court
R.Ashokkumar vs M.Baskaran on 1 March, 2022
SA.No.150/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
SA.No.150/2022 & CMP.No.3009/2022
[Physical Hearing]
R.Ashokkumar .. Appellant /
1st Defendant
Vs.
M.Baskaran .. Respondent /
Plaintiff
Prayer:- Second Appeal preferred under 100 of CPC to set aside the
judgment and decree passed in AS.No.22/2017 by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court], Arani, on 18.02.2019
confirming the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.145/2010 by the
learned Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar on 06.08.2013.
For Appellants : M.S.Sridevi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1
SA.No.150/2022
JUDGMENT
(1) As against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Court
below, the unsuccessful 1st defendant in the suit in
OS.No.145/2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Cheyyar, is the
appellant in this Second Appeal.
(2) The respondent herein as plaintiff, filed the suit in OS.No.145/2010
for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,08,000/- along with interest @ 18%
per annum for the sum of Rs.2 lakhs.
(3) The case of the plaintiff/1st respondent herein is that the
appellant/1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2 lakhs on
15.09.2006 from the plaintiff by executing a Pronote and agreed to
pay interest @ 18%. Stating that the 1st defendant did not pay the
money nor responded to the notice sent by the plaintiff, the suit
came to be filed.
(4) The appellant filed a written statement denying the execution of
Pronote on 15.09.2006 by him in favour of the plaintiff. It is
further alleged in the written statement that no amount was paid as
alleged in the Pronote dated 15.09.2006. The 1st defendant also
SA.No.150/2022
contended that there was no necessity for the defendant to borrow
any amount from the plaintiff. After denying the execution and
receipt of money under the suit Pronote, it appears that the 1st
defendant gave a different version in the course of evidence. He
also examine another witness to show that the plaintiff's father had
some financial transactions with the 1st defendant and that the suit
Pronote was executed as a security for the loan advanced by the
plaintiff's father to the 1st defendant.
(5) The Trial Court, after considering the entire evidence and
pleadings of the respective parties, found that the suit Pronote was
executed by the 1st defendant for consideration. The case of the 1st
defendant that he had borrowed some money from plaintiff's father
and discharged the entire loan and that the suit Pronote was
executed as a security for the loan transaction, the 1 st defendant had
with the plaintiff's father was disbelieved by the Trial Court. The
1st defendant admittedly did not produce any documents to show
any other financial transaction between the plaintiff's father and the
1st defendant. During the course of cross examination, the 1st
SA.No.150/2022
defendant categorically admitted that he executed the suit Pronote.
However, relying upon the evidence of the appellant and his
brother DW2 before the Courts below it was contended that the
plaintiff has not proved the suit transaction. The case of the 1 st
defendant during the course of evidence and argument was
properly considered by the Trial Court and ultimately decreed the
suit after rendering the finding that the case of the 1st defendant in
the course of the evidence that the suit Pronote was executed as a
security for some other financial transaction is not proved by the 1st
defendant. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court decreeing the suit, the 1st defendant preferred an Appeal in
AS.No.22/2017 before the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge [FTC], Arani.
(6) The Lower Appellate Court also was unable to agree with the case
of the appellant/1st defendant and held that the suit Pronote was
executed by the appellant/1st defendant for consideration and that
the appellant / 1st defendant is liable to repay the amount as agreed
by him under the suit Pronote. The collateral transactions pleaded
SA.No.150/2022
by the appellant/1st defendant was also held not proved by the
Lower Appellate Court. As against the concurrent judgments of
the Courts below, the present Second Appeal is preferred by the 1st
defendant.
(7) The appellant/1st defendant has raised the following substantial
question of law in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal:-
''Whether the Courts below followed the
provisions of the Evidence Act in evaluating the
documents relied on by the plaintiff in establishing
this case?''
(8) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts
below have not gone into the validity of the documents filed by the
appellant. The learned counsel then submitted that the evidence of
defendants 1 and 2 was not properly considered. The deposition
of defendants 1 and 2 was to the that the 1st defendant had not
borrowed any money but the suit Pronote was executed in
connection with different transaction. There is no specific pleading
in the written statement. It is well settled that no amount of
evidence is admissible without pleading. In the written statement,
SA.No.150/2022
the appellant has pleaded that there was no necessity to borrow any
loan from the plaintiff.
(9) The 1st defendant along with his brother and father, was running a
jewelry shop under the name and style of ''S.M.Jewelery''. In
evidence, it is the case of the appellant/1st defendant that the 1st
defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff/respondent and his
father on several occasions. Though the appellant/1 st defendant
specifically deposed that the suit Pronote was executed as a
security for some other transaction, the appellant/1st defendant has
not given any details about the other transactions between the
plaintiff and the 1st defendant or between plaintiff's father and 1st
defendant. When it is contended that the suit Pronote was
executed as a blank Pronote, the burden lies on the 1st defendant to
prove that there was no consideration for the suit Pronote. Though
the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act is rebuttable, the appellant in this case has not let in any
evidence to prove the details of any other transaction. Though it is
contended that the appellant/1st defendant has discharged all the
SA.No.150/2022
Pronote loans, the appellant/1st defendant has not given any details
nor produced any evidence. First of all, there is no pleading in the
written statement.
(10) The burden lies on the appellant to prove discharge. However,
there is no evidence to prove such claim. Both the Courts below
have concurrently held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover
money from the appellant/1st defendant which is due on the Pronote
executed by the appellant/1st defendant for consideration.
(11) This Court is unable to find any error or irregularity in the
appreciation of evidence. No perversity is pleaded or brought to
the notice of this Court by referring to any document or evidence.
In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the concurrent findings of the Courts below on facts. This Court
finds that the present Second Appeal is devoid of merits.
(12) In fine, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.03.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
SA.No.150/2022
To
1.Additional District and Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court],
Arani.
2.The Subordinate Judge
Cheyyar.
3.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court
Chennai.
SA.No.150/2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AP
SA.No.150/2022
01.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9
