Madras High Court
R.Thangavelu vs K.Subramani (Died) on 10 October, 2025
A.S.No.357 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
A.S.No.357 of 2011
R.Thangavelu,
S/o Ramasamy Gounder,
16-A, Kuttai Theru, Sandhaipettaipudur,
Namakkal Town and District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. K.Subramani (died),
S/o Karuppanna Gounder,
D.No.5/10, Bharathi Nagar,
Kondichettipatti Village, Namakal Town and District.
2. Palaniamma, D/o Karuppa Gounder (died)
3. Pavayee, W/o Ramasamy
4. Eswaran, S/o Karuppa Gounder
R2 to R4 residing at Door No.M2/33,
Mullai Nagar, TNHB, Mohanur Road,
Namakkal 637 001.
(R1 died, R2 to R4 are brought on record as
LRs of the deceased first respondent, viz.,
K.Subramani, vide order dated 12.07.2023
made in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in A.S.No.357/2011
1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am )
A.S.No.357 of 2011
5. Senthil, S/o Karuppannan
6. Rani, D/o Karuppannan
both are residing at Door No.M2/33, Mullai Nagar,
TNHB Mohanur Road, Namakkal 637 001.
(R2 died. R5 and R6 are brought on record as
LRs of deceased R2 vide court order dated 19.09.2025
made in CMP No.10310,10312, 10315 of 2025 in
A.S.No.357/2011) ... Respondents
PRAYER:
Second Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC r/w Order 41, Rule 1 of CPC to
set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2010 made in O.S.No.17 of 2007
on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar
For Respondent(s) : Ms.Shruthi Varshini S.
for M/s I.Abrar Mohammed Abdullah
for R3 to R6.
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money is the appellant
herein.
2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2007 before the
Principal District Court, Namakkal for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- from
2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am )
the respondent/defendant, based on a promissory note dated 12.05.2025.
According to the appellant/plaintiff, the respondent/ defendant borrowed a sum
of Rs.4,80,000/- from him on 12.05.2025 and on that date, he executed the suit
promissory note, agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Inspite of
several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the said
amount. Hence, the appellant was constrained to file a suit for recovery of
money.
3. The respondent/ defendant filed a written statement denying the
execution of the suit promissory note. According to him, there was no cordial
relationship between him and the plaintiff for the past 15 years and hence, there
was no possibility for him to borrow the amount from the plaintiff. It was
further stated by the defendant that prior to 15 years, the plaintiff and the
defendant were in good relationship. At that point of time, there was money
transactions between them. Hence, the plaintiff obtained blank, signed
promissory note from the defendant and the same could have been used to file
the present suit. It is further stated that in the year 2006, the plaintiff abducted
3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am )
the defendant's brother Eswaran and obtained a power deed from him and the
same was cancelled, based on the police complaint lodged by the defendant. In
view of the above, the plaintiff has come with this suit.
4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the suit
promissory note was marked as Ex.A1. On behalf of the defendant, he was
examined as DW1 and no documentary evidence was adduced on his side.
5. The Trial court, based on the evidence available on record, came to the
conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved the execution of the promissory note
by the defendant and hence dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiff has come forward with this appeal suit.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the
defendant had admitted his signature in the suit promissory note and therefore,
the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of presumption available under Section 118
of Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submitted that the Trial Court
4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am )
committed a serious error in ignoring the statutory presumption and dismissing
the suit.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the plaintiff
failed to examine the attesting witness to prove due execution of the promissory
note and therefore, the Trial Judge was justified in dismissing the suit.
8. Based on the pleadings and the submission made by the counsel on
either side, the following points were raised.
1. Whether the execution of the suit promissory note is proved or not?
2. Whether the appeal is liable to be allowed?
9. Discussion on point No.1:
The execution of the suit promissory note has been specifically denied by
the defendant in his written statement. It is settled law that admission of the
signature would not amount to admission of due execution and passing of
consideration. When the execution of promissory note is denied by the
5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am )
defendant, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the due execution of the
same.
10. In order to prove the execution of the suit promissory note, except the
interested testimony, the plaintiff as PW1, no other evidence is available on
record. It is seen from the records that the Ex.A1, promissory note was
prepared by one Ponvellappan and he signed in Ex.A1 as scribe. The plaintiff
during his cross examination, clearly admitted that the said Ponvellappan was
his close relative. However, for the reason best known to him, he failed to
examine him. Further, one Janakumar had signed the promissory note as
attestor. However, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to examine him as a
witness to prove the execution of the promissory note.
11. A perusal of Ex.A1 would indicate that there is a difference in the ink
used for filling up the printed promissory note and the one used for signing by
the executant. The PW1, in his evidence deposed that single pen was used for
preparing the promissory note and for signing by executant. However, a close
6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am )
scrutiny of Ex.A1 would indicate that there is a difference in the shade of the
ink used for filling up printed promissory note and the one used for signing.
Therefore, this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the
plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the due execution of the promissory note.
The Point No.1 is answered accordingly against the appellant/plaintiff.
12. Point No.2
In view of the conclusion reached by this court in Point No.1, the Point
No.2 is also answered against the appellant/plaintiff.
13. Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed, by confirming the judment
and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal in
O.S.No.17 of 2007 dated 28.01.2010. There shall be no order as to costs.
10.10.2205
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MST
7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am )
To
The Principal District Judge,
Namakkal.
8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am )
S.SOUNTHAR. J.
Mst
10.10.2025
9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am )
