Madras High Court
P.Annadurai vs K.Manoharan on 9 February, 2023
2023/MHC/637
A.S.No.148 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
A.S.No.148 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.5245 of 2022
1.P.Annadurai
[email protected] Malarmani ... Petitioners
Vs.
K.Manoharan ... Respondent
Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 read with Order XVI Rule 1
of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Decree and Judgement dated on
28.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.172 of 2017, on the file of Court of Sessions
(Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Prabhakaran
For Respondent : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.148 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The Appeal Suit has been instituted against the decree and judgment
dated 28.9.2021 passed in O.S.No.172 of 2017.
2. The appellants are the defendants in the Suit and the respondent /
plaintiff instituted a Suit for recovery of money. The plaint filed by the
respondent herein reveals that the plaintiff is doing transport business and
owns a lorry. The defendants are the husband and wife and the 1st defendant
is doing building construction on contract basis. For their professional and
family needs, the defendants 1 and 2 have jointly borrowed a sum of
Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff, promising to repay the same with the rate
of interest of 18% per annum and jointly executed the promissory note on
24.04.2016 at Sandaipetttipudur, Namakkal Town. The defendants failed to
repay the borrowed amount along with the interest and the demands made
by the plaintiff went in vain. Thus, the plaintiff instituted a Suit for recovery
of money along with interest.
3. The defendants filed a written statement stating that the averments
made in the plaint is false. The defendants have not borrowed a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.148 of 2022
Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff with the interest at the rate of 18% per
annum and executed a promissory note on 24.04.2016. The plaint averments
are denied by the defendants and the signature and left thumb impression in
the promissory note is also denied. It is contended that the promissory note
is a forged document and therefore, the Suit is to be dismissed in limine.
4. The Trial Court framed the following issues, which reads as under:
1. Whether it is true that the defendants
borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the
plaintiff and executed the suit promissory
note dated 24.04.2016?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery
of the amount with cost claimed in the suit?
3. What other relief is the plaintiff entitled
into?
5. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and
Ex.A1 was marked. On the side of the defendants, DW1 was examined and
Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked. With issue Nos.1 and 2, the Trial Court
considered the deposition of PW1 and PW2 and made a finding that PW2
Suresh Kumar is one of the witness to the Ex.A1 promissory note. PW2 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.148 of 2022
his deposition, specifically stated about the more of execution of the Suit
promissory note Ex.A1. No questions or suggestions, challenging the
contents in the proof of affidavit with regard to the mode of execution of
Ex.A1 promissory note has been asked during the cross-examination of
PW2 Suresh Kumar by the defendants. Contrarily a suggestion was put that
the PW2 Suresh Kumar was giving false evidence and he has not signed
Ex.A1. Mere suggestion in this regard was found to be unacceptable by the
Trial Court and the clear deposition of PW2 Suresh Kumar was taken into
consideration for the purpose of deciding the issue Nos.1 and 2.
6. PW2 Suresh Kumar was a summoned witness and he has deposed
that the defendants Annadurai and Mani @ Malarmani had borrowed
Rs.12,00,000/- in his presence from the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant had
called him for signing as a witness in the promissory note and he had signed
as 1st witness in the Ex.A1 promissory note. In the cross-examination he has
specifically stated that he along with the defendants went to the plaintiff’s
house and the money was given by the plaintiff to the defendants in his
presence. He has also stated that the nature of notes given by the plaintiff.
PW2 witness to the Ex.A1 promissory note has stood over the cross-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.148 of 2022
examination and specifically stated that execution of the Ex.A1 promissory
note and passing of consideration from the plaintiff and the defendants.
7. The Trial Court had taken note of the ingredients in Section 118 of
the Negotiable Instrument Act, which reads as under:
“118. Presumptions as to negotiable
instruments- 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;
b) that every negotiable instrument bearing
a date was made or drawn on such date;
c) that every accepted bill of exchange was
accepted within a reasonable time after
its date and before its maturity;
d) that every transfer of a negotiable
instrument was made before its maturity;
e) that the indorsements appearing upon a
negotiable instrument were made in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.148 of 2022
order in which they appear thereon;
f) that a lost promissory note, bill of
exchange or cheque was duly stamped;
g) that the holder of a negotiable instrument
is a holder in due course.”
8. Based on the deposition of PW2 and considering the promissory
note Ex.A1, the Trial Court formed an opinion that passing of consideration
from the plaintiff to the defendants had been proved by the evidence of
PW1. The plaintiff and the witnesses PW2, who have deposed that the
money was handed over to the defendants in their presence.
9. The two different stands taken by the defendants are found to be
self contradictory with each other, since the defendants, on the one hand
totally denied the signatures and thumb impression in Ex.A1 promissory
note. On the other hand, they have taken the stand that they have signed in a
blank paper as promissory note Ex.A1 only as a security. The said two
different stands taken in respect of Ex.A1 promissory note was found to be
contradictory and thus, the Trial Court has not trusted upon the version of
the defendants and arrived at a conclusion that the passing of consideration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.148 of 2022
from the plaintiff to the defendants have been proved and furthermore, PW2
is the eye witness, who was present at the time of passing of the
consideration from the plaintiff to the defendants.
10. Considering the facts, documents, evidences and also the
categorical findings of the Trial Court, this Court do not find any further
reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
The grounds raised in the Appeal Suit along with the facts were elaborately
considered by the Trial Court and thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
11. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2023 passed in
O.S.No.172 of 2017 stands confirmed and consequently, the Appeal Suit in
A.S.No.148 of 2022 is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
09.02.2023
Jeni
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.148 of 2022
To
The Judge,
Court of Sessions (Fast Track Mahila),
Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.148 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni
A.S.No.148 of 2022
09.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
