Dismissed

Karuppiah v. Somasundaram

Madras HC8 Apr 2024SA/1243/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a suit for recovery of money on a promissory note, the appellant argued the decree was perverse as the attestor was not examined. The court held that since the appellant admitted executing a blank note and borrowed some amount, the burden to prove the extent of consideration remained on him under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Having failed, the appeal

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; connected Misc. Petition closed.

Karuppiah Vs Somasundaram — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

SA.No.1243 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

S.A.No.1243 of 2010 and MP.No.1 of 2010

Karuppiah

Somasundaram

... Respondent

Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code

¶11

against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2009 made in A.S.No.51 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Ariyalur confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.206 made in O.S.No.544 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ariyalur.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.S.Umashankar for Mr.M.Guruprasad

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Kumar *****

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/7

¶15

SA.No.1243 of 2010

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The defendant before the Trial Court is the appellant herein. The plaintiff is the respondent herein.

¶18

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.

¶19

The brief facts which give rise to the instant Second Appeal is that according to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note dated 01.02.2004 agreeing to repay the same with the interest at 12% per annum. However, since the defendant has not repaid the said amount, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit for recovery of the same.

¶20

The said suit was resisted by the defendant by contending that he has borrowed only Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff for the interest at the rate of 60% per annum. While borrowing Rs.35,000/-, the plaintiff obtained a signed blank pronote, and that by fabricating such signed blank pronote, the plaintiff has falsely instituted the present suit. It was also pleaded that the

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7

¶22

SA.No.1243 of 2010

¶23

defendant has discharged a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the borrowed amount. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

¶24

Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and on behalf of the defendant, the defendant was examined as DW1. On behalf of the plaintiff, 2 documents have been marked as Exs.A1 and A2 and no documents have been marked on behalf of the defendant.

¶25

The Trial Court, after having considered the oral and documentary evidence, has arrived at a conclusion that the defendant has borrowed the amount on pronote. Hence, decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved with the same, when the defendant approached the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court also concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the First Appeal. Hence, the defendant has filed the present Second Appeal.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that, though there is a reference that the plaintiff obtained a blank promissory note and that the defendant has borrowed only a sum of Rs.35,000/-, when

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7

¶28

SA.No.1243 of 2010

¶29

the defendant has specifically disputed the due execution of the promissory note, it is the duty of the defendant to prove the due execution by examining the attestor, whereas in the present case, the attestor was not examined. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the decree of the Trial Court is perverse and liable to be interfered with.

¶30

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently

¶31

contend that there is an admission in respect of the signature found in the promissory note, and also there was an admission in respect of the borrowal of the amount, whereas it is the contention of the defendant that he borrowed

¶32

only a sum of Rs.35,000/- and not Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, in such eventualities the burden is upon the defendant to prove his case, whereas, he failed to discharge his burden. Hence, the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below are liable to be confirmed.

¶33

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

¶34

The sum and substance of the instant Second Appeal is that, whether any necessity has been arisen for the plaintiff to examine the attestor.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7

¶36

SA.No.1243 of 2010

¶37

While looking at the plaint pleadings, it is the contention of the plaintiff that on 01.02.2004, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- by executing the promissory note. Whereas the defendant, though disputes such contention, has categorically admitted that he has given a signed blank promissory note to the plaintiff and he also admitted the borrowal of a sum of Rs.35,000/-. It was also further contended by the defendant that he has also repaid a sum of Rs.25.000/- out of the total borrowed amount of Rs.35,000/-.

¶38

At this juncture, this Court would like to remind upon Section 118 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. Wherein, when the borrower admits the signature in the promissory note, then there will be a statutory presumption towards passing of consideration. Here is the case, the defendant pleads that he has borrowed only Rs.35,000/-. When there is a presumption under Section 118 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden is fully upon the defendant to prove that he has borrowed only a lessor sum of Rs.35,000/-. However, the defendant has not discharged such burden. Only in that context, both the Courts below by relying upon Section 118 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, decreed the suit. Therefore, this Court could not find any perversity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below and also could not find any substantial question of law in this matter.

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7

¶40

SA.No.1243 of 2010

¶41

In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no

¶42

order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶43

08.04.2024

¶44

kmi

¶45

Index : yes/no Speaking/Non Speaking Order

¶46

Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No

¶47

¶48

The Additional District Munsif Court, Ariyalur.

¶49

The Subordinate Court, Ariyalur.

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7

SA.No.1243 of 2010

C.KUMARAPPAN, J

kmi

S.A.No.1243 of 2010

08.04.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7

Karuppiah v. Somasundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppiah v. Somasundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ellammal Vs Govindasamy Udayar

Elayappa Gounder Vs Shanmugavel

R.Devadoss Vs M.Jalendiran

Ramasamy Kounder Vs Allimuthu

C.T.Chellammal Vs C.T.Saravana Perumal (Died)

R.Sivashanmuga Raja Vs Muthamizhselvi