Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mani @ Ravichandran vs R.P.Rajendrakumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 20987 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 20987 Mad
Judgement Date : 5 November, 2024

Madras High Court

Mani @ Ravichandran vs R.P.Rajendrakumar on 5 November, 2024

                                                                                    S.A. No. 778 of 2012

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 05.11.2024

                                                            CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                     S.A. No. 778 of 2012

                   Mani @ Ravichandran                                            ...Appellant
                                                             Vs.


                   R.P.Rajendrakumar                                              ... Respondent



                   PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil
                   Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2012 made
                   in A.S. No. 92 of 2011 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Erode,
                   confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2011 made in O.S. No. No.
                   287 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode.
                                    For Appellant      :      Mr.N.Manokaran

                                    For Respondent     :      Mr.Mahamani


                                                           JUDGMENT

The appellants are the defendants have filed the second appeal against

the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money and got it decreed before

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

the trial Court and confirmed it before the first appellate Court. The one and

only contention raised by the appellant is that the Courts below are not

justified to decree the suit by invoking the Section 118 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act in the absence of an expert opinion under Section 45 of the

Indian Evidence Act or by undertaking the comparative exercise under

Section 73 of the Evidence Act particularly in view of the specific denial of

the execution based on a promissory note by the defendant.

2. As the plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of the promissory note,

which is a Negotiable Instrument, the Court has to necessarily invoke Section

118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act when the execution is admitted. The

presumption under Section 118 is in respect of passing of consideration, when

the execution of the promissory note is admitted. In the instant case, the

appellant /defendant had stated that the suit promissory note is a fabricated,

concocted and forged document and that it is not supported by consideration.

3. In such case, the burden would be on the part of the plaintiff to prove

that the suit promissory note (Exhibit A1) has been executed by the defendant

and that it is supported by the consideration as to how it is written in the sale.

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

4. The plaintiff has been examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 was marked

through him and the scribe who has written the promissory note has been

examined as PW2. Having got satisfied with the substantial evidence on the

side of the plaintiff, the trial Court has recorded the finding that the plaintiff

has proved the fact that the suit promissory note has been executed by the

defendant for consideration.

5. In such case, the burden would shift upon the defendant to prove the

contrary that the promissory note is a fabricated one and it is not supported by

consideration. Even though the appellant/ defendant claims that the Court has

not considered the provisions of Section 45 the Indian Evidence Act, which is

with regard to Expert opinion and he did not file any application before the

Trial Court for sending Ex.A1 for the report with regard to examination of

handwriting. It is the discretion of the Court to make comparison of the

signature in case the Court is not satisfied with the evidence adduced on the

side of the plaintiff or the proof of genuineness of the promissory note.

Insofar as the other provisions under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is

concerned, the defendant himself has not filed any petition for sending the

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

suit promissory note for getting an Expert opinion.

6. In such case, the Courts below cannot be found fault for not invoking

Section 45 or Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned. As no

ground is made out, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.

05.11.2024

Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No Maya

To

1. The Judge, First Additional Sub Court, Erode.

2. The Judge, Principal District Munsif Court, Erode.

3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.

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

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

R.N.MANJULA, J.

Maya

05.11.2024

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter