Dismissed¶11

G.Ramadoss, v. R.Ramadoss

Madras HC10 Apr 2026SA/261/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Promissory note suit; due execution proved by attestors and scribe; plea of forgery; burden on defendant to obtain expert opinion; non-reply to pre-suit notice casting doubt on defence; Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act benefit; agriculturist plea absent from written statement; new plea not entertainable at second appeal stage; Section 100 CPC; concurrent findings; Madras High Court; SA No.261 of 2026; O.S.No.300/2021; A.S.No.65/2024; S. Sounthar, J.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed, confirming the findings of the courts below; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No.8692 of 2026) closed. ¶11

G.Ramadoss, Vs R.Ramadoss — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal dismissed, confirming the findings of the courts below; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No.8692 of 2026) closed.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff proved due execution of the suit promissory note, and whether the defendant's plea of forgery, unsupported by expert opinion, could stand. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The plaintiff proved due execution of the suit promissory note by examining the attestors (PW2 and PW3) and the scribe (PW4), with nothing favourable to the defendant elicited in cross-examination; once due execution was so proved, the defendant, having raised the plea of forgery, was required to obtain expert opinion to prove it, which he failed to do; the courts below rightly rejected the forgery plea.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The defendant's failure to issue any reply to the pre-suit notice (Ex.A2, received as per postal acknowledgment Ex.A3) rebutting the contentions found therein created a doubt about his defense in the written statement.

¶9

Key takeaways

The submission that the defendant borrowed the amount for agricultural activities and was entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act was rejected: the written statement totally denied the borrowal and execution and raised no plea that the defendant was an agriculturist, and a new point cannot be raised at the stage of second appeal.ratio¶10
The courts below, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the correct conclusion that the plaintiff proved the suit claim; there was nothing to interfere with their concurrent findings.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC (Madras High Court, S. Sounthar, J.) — Money suit on a promissory note (O.S.No.300/2021, Sub-Ordinate Court, Jayankondam) decreed for Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a.; first appeal (A.S.No.65/2024, Principal District Court, Ariyalur) dismissed — concurrent findings — Defendant pleaded forgery of the suit promissory note: plaintiff proved due execution by examining the attestors (PW2, PW3) and the scribe (PW4), with nothing favourable elicited in cross-examination; once due execution is proved by attestors and scribe, the burden of proving forgery through expert opinion lies on the defendant, who took no steps — Defendant's failure to reply to the pre-suit notice (Ex.A2; postal acknowledgment Ex.A3) created a doubt about his written-statement defense — Plea of agriculturist status and benefit of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act raised for the first time in second appeal, while the written statement totally denied borrowal and execution; a new plea cannot be entertained at the second appeal stage — Second appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; connected CMP closed.

¶1

SA No. 261 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

SA No. 261 of 2026 and CMP No.8692 of 2026

¶7

G.Ramadoss, S/o. Govindhasamy, Cholankuruchi Village and Post, Udaiyarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.

¶8

..Appellant(s)

¶9

¶10

R.Ramadoss, S/o.Renganathan, Cholankuruchi Village and Post, Udaiyarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC to allow the Second Appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Principal District Court, Ariyalur, dated 09.12.2025 in A.S.No.65/2024, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Sub-Ordinate Court, Jayankondam, dated 30.11.2022 in O.S.No.300/2021 with costs.

For Appellant(s):

Mr. S.Kannan

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendant in a suit in O.S.No.300 of 2021 is appellant

¶17

herein.

¶18

Page1 of 7

¶19

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

¶20

SA No. 261 of 2026

¶21

The respondent/plaintiff filed the above said suit for recovery of

¶22

money based on the promissory note and it was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the defendant in A.S.No.65 of 2024 was dismissed by the first appellate court, affirming the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the defendant has preferred the second appeal.

¶23

According to the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from him on 30.01.2014 and executed the suit promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. It is the case of the plaintiff that, inspite of several demands made by him, the defendant failed to repay the said amount. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a pre suit notice on 25.11.2015 to the defendant calling upon him to repay the borrowed amount. Even thereafter, the defendant failed to repay the borrowed amount and hence, he was constrained to file the suit for recovery of money.

¶24

The defendant/appellant filed a written statement resisting the suit claim on the ground that there was previous money transaction between him and the plaintiff and in the year 2013 and the defendant executed a promissory note. It is further stated by the defendant that the amount borrowed by him in the previous transaction was repaid by him in full, however, the plaintiff failed to return the promissory note executed by the plaintiff. Later, there was a

¶25

Page2 of 7

¶26

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

¶27

SA No. 261 of 2026

¶28

misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the defendant with regard to the dispute in village and aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff created the said promissory note with the help of sample signature of the defendant found in the

¶29

earlier promissory note and laid the present suit. Therefore, according to the defendant, the pronote is forged one and he denied the execution of the same.

¶30

Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, he examined himself as PW1and 3 other witnesses were examined as PW2 to PW4 and 4 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. On the side of the defendant, he examined himself as DW1 and two other witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3 and one document was marked as Ex.B1.

¶31

The Trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved the suit claim and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.65 of 2024 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ariyalur and the first appellate court dismissed the first appeal. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the defendant has preferred the second appeal.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the defendant borrowed the amount for the purpose of agricultural activities and therefore, he was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act. He also

¶33

Page3 of 7

¶34

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

¶35

SA No. 261 of 2026

¶36

submitted that when the execution of suit promissory note was denied by the defendant, the plaintiff failed to prove the same by getting expert opinion. Therefore, according to him, both the courts below committed an error in decreeing the suit.

¶37

As mentioned earlier, the defendant denied the execution of suit promissory note and resisted the suit. In order to prove due execution of promissory note, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and both the attestors to the suit promissory note were examined as PW2 and PW3. The scribe of the suit promissory note was also examined as PW4. Based on the evidence of independent witnesses, namely, PW2 to PW4, the courts below held that the plaintiff had proved due execution of promissory note. The courts below also noted that nothing had been elucidated in the cross examination of plaintiff side witnesses in favour of the defendant’s case. Therefore, the plaintiff, by examining the attestors to the suit promissory note and the scribe of the document, proved due execution of the same. Having raised the plea of forgery, it is for the defendant to get expert opinion to prove the same, when the due execution of promissory note has been proved by examination of attestors and scribe of the document. The courts below rightly held that the defendant failed to take any steps to get expert opinion regarding the signature found in the suit promissory note and hence, rejected the defendant’s plea.

¶38

Page4 of 7

¶39

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

¶40

SA No. 261 of 2026

¶41

Further, before filing of the suit, the plaintiff issued a pre-suit notice Ex.A2 and the same was received by the defendant, as seen from the postal acknowledgment marked as Ex.A3. If the defense raised by the defendant in

¶42

the written statement was true, certainly, he would have replied to the pre-suit notice denying the averments contained therein. The failure of the defendant to issue any reply to the pre suit notice rebutting the contentions found therein creates a doubt about his defense in the written statement.

¶43

The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that the defendant was an agriculturist and he borrowed the amount only for the purpose of agricultural activities. In fact, in the written statement, the defendant, totally denied the borrowal of the amount and execution of the suit promissory note. In such circumstances, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the defendant has borrowed the amount for the purpose of agricultural activities cannot be accepted and the same is rejected. Further, in the written statement filed by the defendant, he has not raised any plea that he was an agriculturist and hence, he is entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act. In the absence of any such plea in the written statement, the appellant is not entitled to raise a new point at the stage of second appeal. Therefore, both the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant are not appealable to this court. The courts below, on proper appreciation of evidence available on record, came to the correct conclusion that the plaintiff

¶44

Page5 of 7

¶45

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

¶46

SA No. 261 of 2026

¶47

has proved the suit claim and decreed the suit. I do not find anything to interfere with the said findings.

¶48

Accordingly, the second appeal stands dismissed, confirming the findings of the courts below. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶49

10-04-2026

¶50

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

¶51

MST

¶52

¶53