Money recovery suit on a demand promissory note for Rs.5,00,000 was decreed by the trial court but reversed on first appeal for want of proof of execution. The High Court found discrepancies in evidence of scribe and attestor and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the reversal.
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.
S.A.No.137 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.137 of 2021
R.D.Venkatesh
… Appellant Vs .
M.Bharathi Bai . . . Respondent
Prayer:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgement and decree granted in A.S.No.86 of 2017 dated 06.08.2020 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hosur in reversing the well considered judgement and decree granted in O.S.No.39 of 2011 dated 31.01.2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Hosur.
For Appellant : M/s.S.C.Vishwanth
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGEMENT
1/11
S.A.No.137 of 2021
The plaintiff whose decree for recovery of money granted by the
Trial Court had been reversed by the Lower Appellate Court is before
this Court.
2 . The facts are set out herein below and the parties are referred
to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.
3 . The plaintiff had filed a suit O.S.No.39 of 2011 on the file of
the Sub Court, Hosur for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,26,250/- together with interest at 9% per annum on Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realization.
out his family expenses and discharge family debts incurred during the construction of the house. The defendant had executed a demand promissory note undertaking to repay the same with interest as and 2/11
S.A.No.137 of 2021
when demanded. The defendant despite such an assurance had not kept up his word. The plaintiff had issued a legal notice on 27.09.2010 calling upon the defendant to clear his outstanding with interest. Despite receiving the notice the defendant had not come forward to clear the loan. On the other hand, the defendant had come with a false reply notice containing incorrect and false allegations. Therefore, the plaintiff had come forward with the above suit.
contending that she had not borrowed any amounts from the plaintiff and had denied the execution of the promissory note. The signature found in the promissory note alleged to be that of the defendant is a forged and fabricated one. The defendant would submit that she has sufficient money and she had no need for borrowing money from the plaintiff. The defendant would submit that the plaintiff had also filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.198/2010 on the strength of the fabricated document to which the defendant had filed a detailed reply.
3/11
S.A.No.137 of 2021
Therefore, the defendant sought to have the suit dismissed.
which are being translated into English as follows:-
1. Is it true that the defendant had borrowed a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 17.04.2010
and executed the demand promissory note?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for
money on the basis of this suit promissory note?
3. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?
Mariappan and Mathaiyan as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. The defendant had examined herself as D.W.1 and had not
marked any documents in support of her case.
4/11
S.A.No.137 of 2021
adduced by the plaintiff's witnesses 2 and 3 who were examined to
prove Ex.A.1 promissory had decreed the suit as prayed for.
the Trial Court stating that the plaintiff had not proved that the defendant had executed the suit promissory note.
" i . Whether the lower appellate Court is right in
concluding that the attesting witness had not supported
the case of plaintiff by readying a part of the cross
5/11
S.A.No.137 of 2021
examination?
ii . Whether the lower appellate Court is right in reversing the well considered judgement and decree of the Trial Court based on a assumption which is not permitted under law?"
the suit promissory note. The Lower Appellate Court had noted the 6/11
S.A.No.137 of 2021
discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.2, the attestor and P.W.1, the plaintiff with reference to the borrowal. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant had directly approached him with a request for a hand loan. However, P.W.2 would submit that he had arranged the loan for the defendant. Further, the plaintiff had issued a notice demanding repayment within 5 months from the execution of the suit promissory note i.e. on 27.09.2010 whereas P.W.2 has contended that one and half years after the execution of the suit promissory note he along with P.W.1 had demanded the payment of amounts due under the suit promissory note. P.W.2 has also contended that the scribe PW.3 had affixed his seal in the suit promissory note which is not found in Ex.A.1, promissory note. This would clearly show that P.W.2 had not witnessed either the execution of the promissory note or the payment of consideration. P.W.3, the scribe, during the cross examination had deposed that the witnesses had signed in black ink but was unable to remember the colour of the ink in which the defendant had signed. A perusal of the suit promissory note would show that the recitals of the 7/11
S.A.No.137 of 2021
suit promissory note, signatures of the attestors and scribe are in the same ink but the alleged signature of the defendant is in the different
ink which creates doubt over the validity of the suit promissory note.
S.A.No.137 of 2021
execution of the suit promissory note and passing of consideration. Therefore, the plaintiff's contention that the Lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal relying on a part of the cross-examination is absolutely erroneous and the Substantial Question of Law No.1 is answered against the plaintiff. In the light of the above discussions, the Substantial Question of Law No.2 is also answered against the plaintiff. Consequently, the Second Appeal stands dismissed and the judgement and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is confirmed. No costs.
08.02.2024
Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No shr
To 9/11
S.A.No.137 of 2021
P.T.ASHA, J.,
10/11
S.A.No.137 of 2021
shr
S.A.No.137 of 2021
08.02.2024
11/11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court erred in holding that the attesting witness had not supported the plaintiff's case based on part of cross-examination.
Whether the lower appellate court's reversal of the trial court decree was based on a legally impermissible assumption.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.D. Venkatesh
M. Bharathi Bai
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
