In this second appeal against a decree confirming a suit for recovery of money secured by a promissory note, the High Court held that since execution was proved, the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving non-receipt of consideration. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.
The second appeal is dismissed. No costs.
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.157 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.03.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.157 of 2024
E.Kannan …Appellant Vs V.Dhayalan ...Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2022 in A.S.No.18 of 2021 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore District confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2021 in O.S.No.252 of 2019 by the Special Sub Court (LAOP Cases), Principal Sub Court O.S.No.79 of 2012, Vellore.
For Appellant : Ms.R.Lakshmi Narayanan
1/9
S.A.No.157 of 2024
JUDGMENT
The defendant is the appellant before this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore in A.S.No.18 of 2021 in and by which the learned Judge has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Special Subordinate Judge, Special Subordinate Court (LAOP Cases), Vellore.
3.The plaintiff had filed the above referred suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,62,520/- together with interest 12% per annum, which he would submit had been lent to the defendant. The plaintiff would submit that, as a security, the defendant had executed a promissory
2/9
S.A.No.157 of 2024
note dated 06.04.2009, promising to pay the amount on demand with interest @ 12%. However, the defendant had failed to re-pay the amount. The plaintiff had issued a legal notice on 09.08.2011 calling upon the defendant to repay the said sum. The defendant, who had received the notice, neither replied nor repaid the mount. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.
4.The defendant had filed a written statement, inter-alia, contending that the promissory note is a forged one. However, the defendant would submit that in the course of jaggery business, he was transacting with the plaintiff. The plaintiff had obtained a signature from him in the blank promissory note. The defendant would submit that he is doing the jaggery business with the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in the habit of exploiting the agriculturists who go to sell their produce, namely, jaggery. The defendant was also in contact with the plaintiff in such a situation. However, he had stopped all his 3/9
S.A.No.157 of 2024 transactions with the plaintiff in the year 2003 itself. The defendant, being an agriculturist, is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Debt Relief Act. Since the suit is based on a forged pronote, the same has to be dismissed.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as
prayed for?
2. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?
4/9
S.A.No.157 of 2024
5/9
S.A.No.157 of 2024
Principal District Court, Vellore. The learned Judge had also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the defendant is before this Court.
S.A.No.157 of 2024
the plaintiff between 2002-2003. However, the defendant, in the course of evidence and arguments, has admitted the execution of the promissory note. He would state that this blank promissory note was executed by him in the year 2002 and not in the year 2009, when the promissory note is said to have been executed. He would plead limitation. However, none of these contentions have been proved by the defendant. Once the execution has been proved, the onus is on the defendant to prove that he has not received the consideration. This onus has not been discharged by the defendant. Therefore, while considering the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, it does not require any reconsideration and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.
07.03.2024
Index: Yes/No
7/9
S.A.No.157 of 2024
Speaking order/non-speaking order srn
To
8/9
S.A.No.157 of 2024
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
S.A.No.157 of 2024
07.03.2024
9/9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the defendant discharged the onus of proving non-receipt of consideration to set aside the decree on the promissory note.
Whether the contention of limitation and forging of the blank promissory note constitutes a substantial question of law.
Whether the second appeal requires reconsideration or loses under the circumstances.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
E.Kannan
V.Dhayalan
PT ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
