In a second appeal for recovery of money, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that due execution of the promissory note was proved by witnesses, invoking Section 118 presumption, which the appellant failed to sufficiently rebut with his alibi evidence regarding a simultaneous marriage.
Second Appeal 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(MD) No.62 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A(MD)No.62 of 2014
Arunachalam
... Appellant
-Vs-
Michellammal (Died)
2.Michael @ Durai
3.Arockiaraj ... Respondents
[R2 and R3 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole respondent vide order of this Court dated 09.07.2021 made in C.M.P(MD).No.5633 of 2021 in S.A(MD).No.62 of 2014]
PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.8 of 2009 dated 22.08.2013 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sankarankovil confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.121 of 2006 dated 28.10.2008 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivagiri.
For Appellants : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondents : No appearance for R2 & R3 R1-Died
1/10
JUDGMENT
S.A(MD) No.62 of 2014
The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The deceased first respondent filed a suit for recovery of money. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the first appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed. Hence, the appellant is before this Court. Pending the second appeal, the first respondent/plaintiff passed away and hence, her legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 and 3.
2/10
S.A(MD) No.62 of 2014
constrained to file a suit for recovery of money, based on promissory note mentioned above.
The First appellate Court also affirmed the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
3/10
S.A(MD) No.62 of 2014
'' a) Whether the Courts below have committed error in taking presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act when the appellant has rebutted the presumption and proved that he was attending the marriage of his daughter at Kerala on 10.05.2003 through Ex.B1 to Ex.B5?
b) When the appellant has specifically denied the signature in the pro-note and when the respondent has not taken any steps to get the opinion of hand writing expert whether the Courts below are right casting the burden of proof on the appellant as against Sections 101 to 103 of Indian Evidence Act?
c) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in rejecting Ex.B1 to B-4 on the ground it is not admissible evidence when the documents are certified copies public document admissible in evidence as per Sections 65 and 66 of Indian Evidence Act?
d) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in rejecting Ex.B5 and Ex.B6 namely the marriage Photograph and the Compact Disk as the same is not in accordance with Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1982 when the marriage is not disputed. ''
4/10
S.A(MD) No.62 of 2014
5/10
S.A(MD) No.62 of 2014
marriage of appellant's daughter was solemnized at Kerala on 10.05.2003 at about 11.00 a.m., the appellant produced only Xerox copy of Ex.B.1 to Ex.B3 and he has not explained why the originals of Ex.B.1 to Ex.B3 were not produced. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Hindu Marriage, Pallickal Grama Panchayat, Kerala. The said certificate only proves that the marriage was solemnized on 10.05.2003, but there is no proof with regard to the timing of marriage.
6/10
S.A(MD) No.62 of 2014
consideration. When there is no material available on record to show that the marriage was solemnized at the very same time in Kerala, the question of law “a” is answered against the appellant in favour of the respondents.
7/10
S.A(MD) No.62 of 2014
promissory note is not that of the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant denied the signature in the promissory note and no steps were taken by him seeking expert opinion for the reasons well known to him. Therefore, the questions of law “ b” is answered against the appellant.
01.04.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No tta
8/10
To
S.A(MD) No.62 of 2014
9/10
S.A(MD) No.62 of 2014
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
tta
S.A(MD)No.62 of 2014
01.04.2024
10/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies when the execution of the promissory note is proved by witnesses.
Whether failure of the appellant to prove alibi through expert evidence or proper timing disproves the execution of the note.
Whether certified copies of marriage documents are admissible to rebut the presumption of debt execution.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Arunachalam
Michellammal
Michael @ Durai
Arockiaraj
S.SOUNTHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
