Second appeal against reversal of a money-recovery decree based on a promissory note said to be executed by a deceased borrower. The High Court found the plaintiff failed to prove execution and consideration, held the cited mortgage precedent inapplicable, answered the substantial question against the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal.
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.(MD) No.294 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
S.A.(MD) No.294 of 2012
Anantharajan
... Appellant
vs.
1.Sebasthiyayee 2.Mallilka 3.Nevis 4.Punitha 5.Xavier ...Respondents
Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2011 passed in A.S.No.36 of 2008 by the Sub Court, Valliyoor reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2007 passed in O.S.No.129 of 2004 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For R1 & R5 : Mr.H.Arumugam For R2 to R4 : No appearance
1/11
S.A.(MD) No.294 of 2012
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. He seeks to challenge the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Valliyoor in A.S.No.36 of 2008 dated 08.03.2011, in and by which the learned Judge has reversed the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate in O.S.No.129 of 2004 dated 20.01.2007.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE:
3.1. The case of the plaintiff is that one Santhosam, who is known to the plaintiff, has borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff for settling the dues that had arisen on account of the marriage of his elder daughter, Mallika. He had also executed a promissory note on 28.12.1999, when he borrowed the said sum promising to repay the same with interest at 24% on demand. He has
2/11
S.A.(MD) No.294 of 2012
also handed over the document relating to the property to the plaintiff. However, contrary to the assurance, the said Santhosam did not pay either the principal or the interest. He died all of a sudden on 28.01.2000 leaving behind the first defendant his wife and the defendants 2 to 5 children as his legal representatives. Since the said Santhosam had died intestate, his property devolved on the aforesaid defendants.
3.2. After the death of Santhosam, the plaintiff had approached the defendants for repaying the said amount on 01.12.2002. However, the first defendant evaded the payment. The defendants turned hostile and the plaintiff learnt that they were attempting to sell the property by appointing a power of agent by the name of Muruganandam of Perappadi. The plaintiff would state that since the sending of the legal notice would defeat the interest of justice, the same was not sent and the plaintiff has straight away filed a suit for recovery of money.
DEFENDANTS' CASE:
3/11
S.A.(MD) No.294 of 2012
the defendants is that Santhosam did not borrow any amount, nor execute any promissory note and the plaintiff is attempting to take advantage of the death of the said Santhosan. Further, Santhosam during his life time had already sold the properties contained in the suit schedule except for item Nos.2 and 3. They therefore prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
TRIAL COURT:
framed the following issues:
4/11
S.A.(MD) No.294 of 2012
APPELLATE COURT:
SECOND APPEAL:
"Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in law in holding that the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not available against the legal heirs of the deceased borrower, particularly in the circumstance that the promissory note was signed by the heirs to the estate of the deceased?"
5/11
S.A.(MD) No.294 of 2012
SUBMISSIONS:
Vs. P.Ramakrishnan and another) .
6/11
S.A.(MD) No.294 of 2012
part of the plaintiff to prove the same. Except for examining himself, the plaintiff has not examined any other person to prove the case. Therefore, he would submit that the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be called in question.
DISCUSSION:
7/11
S.A.(MD) No.294 of 2012
8/11
S.A.(MD) No.294 of 2012
between the plaintiff's mother and the first defendant's husband in respect of certain money transactions. The plaintiff has therefore failed to prove the execution of the documents and also the passing of consideration. The lower appellate Court has not proved the execution of the promissory note.
9/11
S.A.(MD) No.294 of 2012
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No
23.08.2024
mm
To
3.The Section Officer, (2 copies) V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
10/11
S.A.(MD) No.294 of 2012
P.T.ASHA, J.
mm
S.A.(MD) No.294 of 2012
23.08.2024
11/11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court erred in holding that the presumption under Section 118 NI Act was not available against the legal heirs of the deceased borrower.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrs.V.Venkattammal Vs. P.Ramakrishnan and anotherDistinguished
2009 3 LW 724 (Mrs.V.Venkattammal Vs. P.Ramakrishnan and another)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Anantharajan
Sebasthiyayee
Mallilka
Nevis
Punitha
Xavier
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
