The High Court dismissed a second appeal against a decree for money recovery based on a promissory note. The appellant failed to displace the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as his defence evidence was found unreliable and unsubstantiated.
Second appeal dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.02.2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.02.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S. A.No.259 of 2011 and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
Elangovan
... Appellant
Vs. Sivasamy ... Respondent
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009 made in A.S.No.51 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, at Perambalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2007 made in O.S.No.34 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Ariyalur.
For Appellant : Ms. R.Anu for M/s.Srinath Sridevan For Respondent : Mr.M.V.Krishnan
2
JUDGMENT
In this second appeal, challenge is made by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009 made in A.S.No.51 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Perambalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2007 made in O.S.No.34 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Ariyalur.
3.According to the plaintiff, the defendant, on 14.04.2002, borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and in evidence thereof, executed the suit promissory note promising to repay the said sum with interest on demand. Inasmuch as the defendant failed to honour his promise despite several demands and also the issuance of notice, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to institute the suit.
3
promissory note from him and thereafter, the defendant had paid interest regularly towards the above said borrowed sum and resultantly, on 20.02.2004, paid the entire amount in the presence of the witnesses and further, agreed to receive back the signed blank promissory note from the plaintiff later as per the request of the plaintiff and inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to return the said signed blank promissory note subsequently, it is the case of the defendant that in the presence of the witnesses, again, on 17.01.2005, he requested the plaintiff to return back the said bond. However, the plaintiff contended that the defendant has to pay Rs.19,350/- being the principal sum plus interest and only on the payment of the same, he would return back the bond and therefore, according to the defendant, he had sent a notice dated 29.01.2005 calling upon the plaintiff to return the said bond and to the same, the plaintiff sent a reply on 04.02.2005 containing the false allegations and therefore, according to the defendant, the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4
5
on 20.02.2004, there is no material forthcoming on the side of the defendant. If really, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.08.2001 and in token of the same, had handed over the signed blank promissory note to the plaintiff and if, thereafter, the defendant had paid or discharged the said debt, it could be seen that he would have taken adequate steps in the manner known to law to retrieve the signed blank promissory note alleged to have been given by him to the plaintiff. At the foremost, the defendant has not established that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.08.2001. In such view of the matter, the defence put forth that for the said transaction, he had given a signed blank promissory note to the plaintiff, as such, cannot be accepted. The plea put forth by the defendant that after the discharge of the debt as per the request of the plaintiff, he had deferred the receipt of the signed blank promissory note from the plaintiff cannot be believed and accepted in any manner. If really there is any element of truth in the above defence set out by the defendant, as a prudent person, one would have expected the defendant to at least get back the signed blank promissory note, on the discharge of the debt. But he would state that as the plaintiff had requested, he had returned back without getting back the signed blank promissory note, which is far-fetched to be accepted.
6
7
the reply notice dated 04.02.2005 has been marked. Further, according to the defendant, to the said notice, he has sent a reply on 17.12.2005. The said reply is not forthcoming. Therefore, it is found that the various pleas taken by the defendant that the plaintiff had made use of the signed blank promissory note given by him, at the time of the borrowal of Rs.15,000/- on 10.08.2001, is found to be nothing but falsehood and accordingly, it is seen that the defendant is unable to place any acceptable evidence with reference to the same.
8
the onus resting upon him as mandated under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore, it could be seen that Ex.B1
9
does not, in any manner, support the defendant's version.
10
uphold the defendant's version.
11
(Kundan Lal Rallaram V. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay) and AIR 1987 AP 139 (G.Vasu V. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri) as rightly put forth by the plaintiff's counsel would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. The Principles of Law enunciated in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In conclusion, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No sms
21.02.2017
To
12
T.RAVINDRAN,J.
sms
Pre-delivery Judgment in S. A.No.259 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
21.02.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the defendant discharged the onus under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to show the promissory note lacked consideration.
Whether the evidence placed by the plaintiff established the debt beyond reasonable doubt despite the defendant's claims.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kundan Lal Rallaram V. Custodian, Evacuee Property, BombayFollowed¶45
AIR 1961 SC 1316 Kundan Lal Rallaram V. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay · Who else cites this
G.Vasu V. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin QuadriFollowed¶45
AIR 1987 AP 139 G.Vasu V. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Elangovan
Sivasamy
T.RAVINDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
T.RAVINDRAN
Parties & counsel
