Bank's second appeal against reversal of its money recovery decree on a promissory note. The High Court held both defendants executed the note and the burden lay on them to prove repayment or waiver; it restored the trial court's decree.
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.981of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 20.06.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 23.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
S.A.No.981 of 2011
City Union Bank Ltd., Mayiladuthurai Branch, Nagapattinam District ... Appellant Vs. 1. S.V.Raman 2. R. Mamu ... Respondents
Prayer :- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.03.2011 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai in A.S.No.98 of 2010 reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2010 passed by the Additional District Munsiff, Myladuthurai in O.S.No.186 of 2009.
1/10
S.A.No.981of 2011
For Appellants : Mr. G. Senthil Kumar For Respondents : set-exparte
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 31.03.2011 passed in A.S.No.98 of 2010 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 04.08.2010 passed in O.S.No.186 of 2009 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Myladuthurai.
plaintiff bank and agreed to repay the same on demand and executed a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10
S.A.No.981of 2011
promissory note on the same day. Thereafter, the defendants executed renewal
of demand promissory note and acknowledgement on 25.06.2006 ad 28.12.2006 respectively. Since the defendants failed to repay the said loan amount in spite of repeated demands, the suit has been filed.
3/10
S.A.No.981of 2011
4/10
S.A.No.981of 2011
question of law:
S.A.No.981of 2011
finding of the First Appellate Court is that the first defendant alone is the borrower. Even if the first defendant alone is the borrower, on admitting the suit loan, the suit ought not to be dismissed as against the first defendant. The learned First Appellate Judge erred by observing that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the loan is not waived by the Central Government. On the other hand, the defendants had not claimed any waiver of the loan by the Central Government and he has not given any application to the bank to waive the suit loan amount. The First Appellate Court erred by the observing the Maxim “Res Ispa Loquitur” applies to the facts of the case. The finding of the First Appellate Court is erroneous and reiterated the other grounds raised in the grounds of appeal and thus, pleaded to allow the appeal.
6/10
S.A.No.981of 2011
** ehd; fld; th';fpaJ Kjy; t';fpf;F ghf;fp bjhif vJt[k; jpUg;gp brYj;jtpy;iy/ vdf;F tptrhaj;jpy; ec;&lk; Vw;gl;ljhy; jpUg;gp brYj;j ,aytpy;iy/ mry; Mtzj;ij t';fpapy; xg;gilj;jjw;F urPJ
7/10
S.A.No.981of 2011
ehd; th';fpa[s;nsdh vd;why; ehd; vJt[k; th';ftpy;iy/ ”
When the first defendant admitted the suit loan amount, it is his burden to prove the repayment of the suit loan amount and it is also his burden that the loan amount was waived by the Central Government Scheme. But, in this case, the Defendants failed to adduce any evidence to show that they had repaid the joint loan amount and the suit loan amount was waived by any one of the Central Government Scheme. Under these circumstances, the First Appellate Court, without assigning any valid reason, set aside the judgment and the decree passed by the Trial Court, which is erroneous one. The Trial Court, after discussing the entire evidence, rightly found that the defendants had borrowed the suit loan amount from the Bank and not repaid the loan amount, which was also not waived by any scheme of Central Government and decreed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court, by misapplying the Maxim “ Res Ispa Loquitur” dismissed the suit and allowed the Appeal. On fact, both the defendants singed in the promissory note, in which, the first defendant signed upon the stamp paper and the second defendant signed below the stamp paper. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the first defendant alone executed the promissory note. The burden of proof is upon the defendants, who signed in the collateral loan and eligibility for the Central Government Scheme and thus, the defendants failed. Therefore, the findings of the First Appellate https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10
S.A.No.981of 2011
Court being erroneous one and not considered the evidence on record.
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is restored. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No 23.07.2024 mrp
To
9/10
S.A.No.981of 2011
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
mrp
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in S.A.No.981 of 2011
23.07.2024
10/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether both defendants jointly executed the promissory note when only one signed on the revenue stamp?
Who bears the burden of proving repayment or waiver of the loan under a Central Government agricultural loan waiver scheme?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
City Union Bank Ltd., Mayiladuthurai Branch, Nagapattinam District
S.V.Raman
R. Mamu
V. Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
