Madras High Court
P.Sadasivam vs A.Chinnasami (Died) on 7 December, 2023
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
S.A.No.864 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.864 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.27301 of 2023
P.Sadasivam ... Appellant
Vs.
A.Chinnasami (died)
1. Sarojini Devi
2. Eshwari
3. Kalaiselvi
4. Malathi
5. Sivakumar
6. SenthilKumar
7. Kirthika Devi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2023 in A.S.No.27 of
2017, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Harur, Dharmapuri,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012 in O.S.No.113
of 2004, passed by the learned District Munsif, Harur, Dharmapuri.
For appellant : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen
For respondents : Mr.V.Nicholas
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.864 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below has
preferred the above second appeal.
2. The facts which have led to the filing of the above second
appeal are briefly set out hereinbelow. The parties are referred to in
the same ranking as before the Trial Court viz., District Munsif Court,
Harur.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2.1. The suit in O.S. No. 113 of 2004 was filed by the first
plaintiff Chinnasamy, for recovery of a sum of Rs.45,000/- together
with interest due towards the hand loan taken by the defendant from
him for which he had executed a promissory note as a security.
2.2. It is the contention of the first plaintiff that the defendant
had not come forward to clear the dues and therefore, he had come
forward with the suit for recovery of the said money.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.3. The defendant had filed a written statement inter alia
denying the fact that he had executed the suit promissory note. On the
contrary, it is the case of the defendant that on 23.03.1995, he had
borrowed a sum of Rs.3,500/- from the plaintiff and executed a
promissory note for the same. The defendant would submit that the
plaintiff lends money and takes usurious loans (KanthuVatti).
2.4. The defendant would further submit that he had borrowed
from the first plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,500/- on 17.06.1995 and Rs.500/-
on 25.11.1995 and therefore, a total sum of Rs.5,500/- was borrowed
by him from the first plaintiff. He had assured the plaintiff that he
would pay the interest at the rate of Rs.2/- for every Rs.100/-. The
defendant would further submit that he had totally repaid a sum of
Rs.11,000/- for the aforesaid loan as follows:
(a)Rs.1,000/- on 17.06.1996;
(b)Rs.5,000/- on 14.11.1996;
(c)Rs.4,000/- on 10.10.1997;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(d)Rs.1,000/- on 22.04.1998;
2.5. This amount was paid by the defendant in the presence of
one Motur Munusamy. The defendant would submit that the entire
loan was cleared and when the defendant requested the plaintiff to
return the promissory note and the same was also returned.
2.6. The defendant would further submit that the plaintiff is a
Homeo Doctor and had requested him to give his house for rent which
was turned down by him. Therefore, angered by the refusal of the
defendant, the first plaintiff had created above suit promissory note
and instituted the suit on false grounds. He would therefore, submit
that no amount was due by him and the suit has to be dismissed.
TRIAL COURT:
3. The Trial Court has framed the issues as to
“(i) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the suit
amount as claimed?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs have fabricated the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
promissory note and filed this suit?
(iii) Whether the defendant had repaid the entire
loan to the plaintiffs?
(iv) To what other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled
for?”
4. Pending the suit, the sole plaintiff had died and his legal
heirs were brought on record as the plaintiffs 2 to 8. The second
plaintiff had examined herself as P.W.1 and one Gundan and one
Jaffar as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively, and marked Exs.A1 to A3. On
the side of the defendant, the sole defendant had examined himself as
D.W.1 and marked Exs. B1 to B3.
5. The learned Judge, after considering the evidence on
record and of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are the witness
and scribe respectively, of Ex.A1- promissory note, held that the
document has been executed and handed over by the defendant.
6. The learned Judge has also taken note of the pleadings
taken by the defendant in his reply notice and in his written statement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The defendant in his reply notice had contended that he had borrowed
a sum of Rs.5,500/- from the plaintiff, whereas, the amount stated by
him in his written statement would clearly show that the amount
borrowed was a sum of Rs.6,000/-. The defendant has gone on to deny
the signature in Ex.B1 which has been admitted by him. Therefore,
the learned Judge, taking into consideration that the plaintiff had
proved the execution of the promissory note, had ultimately decreed
the suit.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant had filed A.S.No.27
of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Harur.
LOWER APPELLATE COURT:
8. The learned Judge had also concurred with the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgment
and decree, the defendant is before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DISCUSSION:
9. The only contention raised by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant is that a petition was taken out
for the comparison of the signature in both the documents and to
obtain a forensic report in this regard. However such an expert was
not appointed and the lower Appellate Court has also not taken into
consideration this factum, while dismissing the appeal.
10. Heard Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr.V.Nicholas, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents and perused the materials available on record.
11. The defendant has not denied the signature in the
promissory note. On the contrary, it is his contention that the
promissory note which has been marked as Exs.A1 is the promissory
note which was given by him as early as 1995. However, he has not
proved it.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. Be that as it may, once the defendant has admitted his
signature, no useful purpose would be obtained by sending the
signature for forensic test. The plaintiffs has proved the execution of
the promissory note and the giving of the loan by examining P.W.1
and P.W.2 and the defendant has not been able to elicit any contra
evidence from them. Therefore, the defendant has not made out any
case for interfering with the concurrent judgment and decree of both
the Courts below which have held that the borrowal and execution of
the promissory note has been proved.
Accordingly, this second appeal stands dismissed as it does not
contemplate any substantial question of law. Consequently, connected
C.M.P. stands closed. No costs.
07.12.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
ssa
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. The Sub Judge, Harur, Dharmapuri.
2.The District Munsif, Harur, Dharmapuri.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
P.T.ASHA, J.,
ssa
and
C.M.P.Nos.20333 and 27301 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
07.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
