Dismissed¶54

Chinnusamy v. Irulappan(Died)

Madras HC11 Feb 2026SA/227/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, SA No. 227 of 2007, decided 11-02-2026 by Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J.: second appeal by defendant against concurrent decrees in a promissory-note suit (pronote dated 30.07.2002; debt Rs.90,000/-; suit claim Rs.98,400/-) dismissed — no substantial question of law under Section 100; genuineness of pronote, consideration, non-reply to legal notice and non-examination of attesting witness held to be questions of fact; courts below had relied on Section 73 Evidence Act signature comparison and Section 118 Negotiable Instruments Act presumption of consideration.

What did the court decide?

No substantial question of law arises for consideration before this Court; all the questions raised as questions of law are, in fact, questions of fact which the Court cannot go into while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100.

Chinnusamy Vs Irulappan(Died) — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

SA No. 227 of 2007

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

SA No. 227 of 2007

Chinnusamy

..Appellant(s)

Irulappan(died)

¶11

E.Raja

¶12

E.Latha

¶13

E.Bharathi

¶14

Karuppayammal

¶15

[R2 to R5 brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole respondent vide order dated 27.04.2019 in MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 in S.A.No.227 of 2007] ..Respondent(s)

¶16

Prayer

¶17

To set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 20.03.2006 made in A.S.No.195 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Slaem, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 24.08.2005 made in O.S.No.2433 of 2004 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Salem.

¶18

For Appellant(s): M/s.V.Ambika for Mr.N.S.Sivakumar

¶19

For Respondent(s): M/s.Zeeanth Begum For R2 To R5

¶20

Page1 of 7

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

SA No. 227 of 2007

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This second appeal is at the instance of the appellant/ defendant against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the lower appellate court. Originally, the suit in O.S.No.2433 of 2004 was laid by the Respondent No.1 herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.90,000/- together with interest against the appellant herein, based on a pronote. During pendancy of this second appeal, the Respondent No.1 died. Hence, the Respondents 3 to 5 were brought on record being the legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No.1.

¶25

The parties are referred to as per their status in the original suit for the sake of convenience.

¶26

The suit is originally laid by the plaintiff basing upon the pronote dated 30.07.2002 said to have been executed by the defendant acknowledging a debt of Rs.90,000/- and agreeing to repay the same in six installments on or before 30.07.2004. As the defendant failed to repay the said amount as promised, the plaintiffs caused a notice dated 22.07.2004 calling upon the defendant to repay the amounts due under the pronote dated 30.07.2002. The same was received and acknowledged by the defendant on 26.07.2004, but he failed to comply nor replied to the said notice. Consequently, the plaintiff instituted the suit in question for recovery of an amount of Rs.98,400/- with subsequent interest and

¶27

Page2 of 7

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

SA No. 227 of 2007

¶30

costs. The defendant filed a written statement, denying the execution of the suit pronote and also denied the receipt of consideration while questioning the capacity of the plaintiff to lend the amount covered by the pronote. During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W-1 and his wife was examined as P.W-2 and Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, he himself got examined as D.W-1 and no Exhibits were marked. The trial court, in all, framed four issues, which reads as under:-

¶31

1. Whether the suit pronote agreement, dated 29.06.2002 is true and genuine?

¶32

1. Whether the suit pronote is supported by consideration?

¶33

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the suit claim?

¶34

1. To what relief?

¶35

The trial court, after having examined the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, came to the conclusion that the signature of the defendant on the pronote/ Ex.A1 and the signature of the defendant on the vakalat, Ex.A3/ Acknowledgement and the written statement were all identical and, on exercising its power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, came to the conclusion that the signature found on Ex.A1/ pronote is that of the defendant alone. Having arrived at such conclusion, the trial court proceeded to draw a presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with regard to passing of consideration and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed appeal in A.S.No.195 of 1995 on the

¶36

Page3 of 7

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

SA No. 227 of 2007

¶39

file of the Sub Court, Salem. The lower appellate court, having examined the matter afresh, came to the conclusion that the defendant himself admitted about the execution of the suit pronote by suggesting that the same was executed at Suramangalam Police Station under coercion. As the defendant failed to take any such plea in the written statement, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the evidence of the defendant that the suit pronote got executed with coercion etc., cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of any pleadings to that effect.

¶40

Further, the lower appellate court also took note of the fact that there was no suggestion put to P.W-1 or P.W-2 during the course of their crossexamination on the alleged forgery of the signature on Ex.A1/ pronote. The lower appellate court also took note of the fact that the defendant, having received the notice under Ex.A2 and after having acknowledged the same under Ex.A3, failed to get any reply notice issued and thus came to the conclusion that had there been any dispute about the signature on Ex.A1/ pronote, the defendant would have got issued a reply notice denying the demand made by the plaintiff under Ex.A2/ Notice. Thus, the trial court as well as the lower appellate court, having examined the facts of the case threadbare and the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, arrived at factual findings and accepted the claim made by the plaintiff. It is aggrieved by the said concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court, the defendant is in appeal before this

¶41

Page4 of 7

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

SA No. 227 of 2007

¶44

court under Section 100 of Cr.P.C by raising the following substantial questions of law:-

¶45

Whether the court below are correct in law in holding

¶46

that the Exhibit A1 suit pronote agreement dated 30.07.2002 is a valid one?

¶47

Whether the courts below are correct in law in arriving at a finding that for want of reply to Exhibit A2 legal notice dated 22.07.2004 would prove that Exhibit A1 suit pronote agreement is supported by consideration?

¶48

Whether the courts below are correct in law in holding that Exhibit A1 suit pronote agreement dated 30.07.2002 is proved in the absence of examination of anyone of the the attesting witness?

¶49

This court, after having examined the matter in detail and having gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court and after examining the entire evidence on record, is of the considered view that there is no substantial question of law that would arise for consideration before this court and all the questions raised as questions of law are, infact, questions of fact which this court cannot go into while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, this court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for admission under Section 100 Cr.P.C, as there is no

¶50

Page5 of 7

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

SA No. 227 of 2007

¶53

substantial question of law that would arise in the matter.

¶54

Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶55

11-02-2026

¶56

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No skr

¶57

__________ Page6 of 7

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

SA No. 227 of 2007

¶60

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶61

skr

¶62

SA No. 227 of 2007

¶63

11-02-2026

¶64

__________ Page7 of 7

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and Decree dated 20.03.2006 in A.S.No.195 of 2005, by which the defendant's first appeal was dismissed and the trial court's decree in O.S.No.2433 of 2004 dated 24.08.2005 was confirmed.¶17
Court of Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Salem · 20.03.2006
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.2433 of 2004 instituted by the plaintiff (Respondent No.1) on a pronote dated 30.07.2002 acknowledging a debt of Rs.90,000/- repayable in six installments on or before 30.07.2004; after notice dated 22.07.2004 (Ex.A2) was received and acknowledged on 26.07.2004 (Ex.A3) without compliance or reply, the suit was laid for Rs.98,400/- with subsequent interest and costs.¶26
Prior proceeding
Defendant filed a written statement denying execution of the pronote and receipt of consideration, questioning the plaintiff's capacity to lend; at trial the plaintiff examined himself as P.W-1 and his wife as P.W-2, marking Exhibits A1 to A3; the defendant examined himself as D.W-1 with no exhibits; the trial court framed four issues including genuineness of the pronote and consideration.¶30
Prior proceeding
Trial court compared the defendant's signature on Ex.A1/pronote with his signatures on the vakalat, Ex.A3/Acknowledgement and the written statement under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, found the Ex.A1 signature to be the defendant's, drew the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as to consideration, and decreed the suit.¶35
Prior proceeding
Defendant appealed in A.S.No.195 of 1995 (as printed in the judgment; the prayer describes it as A.S.No.195 of 2005) to the Sub Court, Salem; the lower appellate court held that the plea of execution under coercion could not be considered absent pleading in the written statement, noted that no suggestion of forgery of the Ex.A1 signature was put to P.W-1 or P.W-2 in cross-examination, and drew an adverse inference from the absence of any reply notice to Ex.A2; concurrent findings resulted in acceptance of the plaintiff's claim.¶39
Prior proceeding
During pendency of the second appeal, the sole respondent Irulappan died and R2 to R5 were brought on record as his legal representatives by order dated 27.04.2019 in MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 in S.A.No.227 of 2007 (the body of the judgment at ¶24 describes Respondents 3 to 5 as brought on record).¶15

Chinnusamy v. Irulappan(Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnusamy v. Irulappan(Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Elumalai Vs Mrs. Devarani, I.P.S.

P.Kannan Vs Sampathkumar and Another

E.Velu, Vs Mr. Selvam and another

Elangamani Vs Rangapandian

Murali Manohar(Died), 1.T.R.JAYACHANDRAN Vs The Executive Officer

K.B.Chandraseara Reddiar Vs N.Jayaraj