This judgment dismisses a second appeal filed against a decree for recovery based on a promissory note. The court upheld the lower courts' finding that the appellant varied his signature to evade legal action and held that examination of attestors sufficed where the scribe was not examined.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
S.A.No.1265 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
1.Sathianarayanan (Died)
S/o.Kesava Naicker
2.S.Shanthi, W/o.Sathianarayanan, Both are residing at No.182, Masudi Street, Thirukalikundran Town & Post, Kanchipuram District. ...Appellants/Appellants/Defendants
3.Suresh, S/o.Sathianarayanan,
4.Thenmozhi, D/o.Sathianarayanan, 5.Ramkumar, S/o.Sathianarayanan,
All are residing at No.183, Masudi Street, Thirukalikundran Town & Post, Kanchipuram District. ... Appellants 3 to 5/Appellants 3
to 5 brought on record as LRS of the deceased Ist Appellant, Viz., Sathianarayanan vide Court order dated 18/11/2021 in CMP 12059 of 2021 in S.A.No.1265 of 2014
Vs.
S.Vasudevan, S/o.Sriramalu, No.113, Big Street, Thirukalikundran Town & Post, Kanchipuram District. ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2014 made in A.S.No.94 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2007 made in O.S.No.33 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpet.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Gowri Shankar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
The Defeated Defendants are the Appellants herein.
2.The Respondent/Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of suit amount of Rs.1,34,500/- due under the promissory note (Ex.A1) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Legal notices have been issued under Ex.A2, Ex.A3 & Ex.A4. Subsequently suit was filed and the same was decreed. Against which A.S.No.94 of 2007 has been preferred by Defendants and the same was dismissed and hence the Second Appeal.
3.The Learned counsel for the Appellants/Defendants contended that he has disputed the execution of the pronote and the signature found in the pronote is forged. The next contention raised in the written statement is that the Defendant borrowed the money from one Dr.Sathish, who is a commission agent, insisted the Defendant to pay the commission for the amount obtained by him. Since he did not pay any commission to the Plaintiff, he has created Ex.A1, in order to extract money from the the Defendant. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that both the points raised by the Appellant/Defendant is not supported legally and unsustainable. The said finding is challenged in this Appeal.
4.Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in AIR 2018 Bombay 81 that
when the scribe is not examined, it is a fatal to the Plaintiff case. On perusal of the lower Court records, it is seen that PW2 attestor of the pronote has been examined. Apart from PW1, the attestor is also examined and hence when the attestor of suit pronote ExA1 is examined, non examination of the scribe cannot be a sole reason to disregard the entire case of the Respondent/Plaintiff. Further it is to be stated that a plea was raised that signature of the Defendant is forged. The trial Court on comparison of acknowledgment card/Ex.A3, written statement, the deposition and the vakkalat has come to the conclusion that the Defendant is in the habit of putting the signature in different manner in each of the documents and come to the concurrent finding that the Defendant/Appellant has no settled signature. The said finding is accepted by the lower Appellate Court.
5.Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant would contend that the comparison of the signature by the Judicial Officer is not warranted, admittedly no admitted signature has been filed before the Courts. The documents which is available before Court are as stated supra only and from the said discussion by both the Courts below, the finding rendered by both the Courts that the Appellant/Defendant had putting the signature differently and he has no settled signature and hence, I find that the Appellant/Defendant in order to evade any legal action for recovery has indulging in putting different signature at different occasion. Furthermore, when the position is clear as to the point and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 attestors are to the effect, both the Courts below were rightly come to the conclusion that the burden of the proof on the shoulder of the Plaintiff, it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the concurrent finding rendered by the Courts below does not require any interference.
6.In fine, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
sai
To
1.The Additional District Judge, Chengalpet, 2.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpet. Copy to The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to the Govi Ganesan, Advocate Sr.1348
S.A.No.1265 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
rsv[co] srg 16/02/2022
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding that the appellant indulges in varying his signature to evade legal action warrants interference in a second appeal.
Whether non-examination of the scribe of a promissory note defeats the plaintiff's case given the examination of attesters.
Whether a comparison of signatures by a judicial officer is warranted in the absence of an admitted specimen signature.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
AIR 2018 Bombay 81Referred¶22
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1.Sathianarayanan (Died) & Others
S.Vasudevan
RMT Teekaa Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
