Sankaran Pillai vs Ramalingam Chettiar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4211 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4211 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 March, 2025

Madras High Court

Sankaran Pillai vs Ramalingam Chettiar on 20 March, 2025

                                                                                                     SA No.180 of 2004

                                   BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT


                                                      Dated: 20/03/2025


                                                                   CORAM
                                          The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
                                                       SA No.180 of 2004

                     Sankaran Pillai                                           : Appellant/Respondent/
                                                                                 Defendant

                                                                    Vs.

                     Ramalingam Chettiar                                       : Respondent/Appellant/
                                                                                 Plaintiff


                                  PRAYER:-Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of
                     the          Civil    Procedure         Code,        against             the    judgment      and
                     decree, dated 01/07/1996 made in AS No.159 of 1995 on the
                     file          of   the   Principal         District           Judge,           Pudukottai,     in
                     reversing the judgment and decree, dated 28/02/1995 made
                     in OS No.317 of 1994 on the file of the Court of District
                     Munsif, Aranthangi.


                                        For Appellant                 : Mrs.S.Maheswari
                                                                        for Mr.P.Srinivas

                                        For Respondent                : No appearance


                                                      J U D G M E N T

This second appeal is preferred against the judgment

and decree, dated 01/07/1996 made in AS No.159 of 1995 by

the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, in reversing

the judgment and decree, dated 28/02/1995 made in OS

No.317 of 1994 by the District Munsif, Aranthangi.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )

2.The plaint:-The defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.7,000/- from the plaintiff on 10/02/1990 promising to

return the same along with interest @ 24% per annum and

executed the promissory note on the same day. In-spite of

repeated demand, he did not come forward to repay the

loan amount. Hence, the suit.

3.The statement:-The promissory note, dated

10/02/1990 is denied stating that it was not executed

towards any borrowal. The plaintiff was running a monthly

chit. The defendant became a subscriber in one of the

Chit Groups for Rs.10,00o/-. When the chit transaction

was over, the plaintiff demanded to join the Chit Group

of Rs.20,000/-. But the defendant did not join and

willing. Because of that, the plaintiff got angry with

him, misused the signed papers in the custody of the

plaintiff, at the time of joining in the Chit Group of

Rs.10,000/-.

4.On the basis of the pleadings of both sides, the

trial court has formulated the following issues:-

(1)Whether the plaintiff is

entitled to get the amount as prayed

for in the plaint?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )

(2)To what other relief, the

plaintiff is entitled to?.

5.On the side of the plaintiff, 2 witnesses were

examined and 3 documents marked. On the side of the

defendant, one witness was examined and one document

marked.

6.At the conclusion of the trial process, the trial

court dismissed the suit without any cost. Against which,

appeal was preferred before the Principal District Judge,

Pudukkottai in As No.159 of 1995. By judgment and decree,

dated 01/07/1996, the appellate court set aside the

decree and judgment of the trial court and directed the

defendant to pay a sum of Rs.9,520/- to the plaintiff and

interest @ 12% for Rs.7,000/- from the date of the suit

till the date of judgment and thereafter, at the rate of

6% per annum till the date of realization.

7.Against which, this second appeal is preferred by

the defendant as appellant.

8.At the time of admission, the following

substantial questions of law were formulated for

consideration:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )

(1)Whether in law, a scribe to a

promissory note can also act as an

attesting witness in the absence of

animo attestandi?

(2)Whether the Lower Appellate

Court was right in concluding that the

presumption under section 118 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act would arise,

when the initial burden to prove

execution rests upon the plaintiff?

9.Heard both sides.

10.Perusal of the records shows that the plaintiff

filed EP No.86 of 1998 before the District Munsif,

Aranthangi to execute the decree. In that, he filed a

memo stating that the entire amount was paid by the

appellant/defendant. On that basis, EA No.1 of 2000 was

disposed, on 04/02/2000. The memo filed before the trial

court is available on record, which is sent by the trial

court. It appears that the settlement was not intimated

to this court at the of hearing. In view of the above

said, appeal does not survive.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )