Appellate court overturns judgment in promissory note case, finding lack of consideration. Defendants not liable.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff failed to prove the passing of consideration for the promissory notes and that the defendants successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As a result, the defendants were not liable to pay the suit amounts from the deceased's estate, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the deceased Tiruppathi had obtained loans of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed promissory notes.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim.
3. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the suit amounts from the estate of the deceased Tiruppathi.
4. Whether the defendants had rebutted the initial presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. Whether the judgment of the learned trial judge is fair and proper.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the deceased Tiruppathi had obtained loans of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed promissory notes:
The plaintiff claimed that Tiruppathi took loans of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 17.02.2014 and Rs. 7,00,000/- on 01.05.2014, executing promissory notes for these amounts. The defendants contested this, alleging that the promissory notes were concocted and that their father had no need for such loans as he had already purchased a tractor before these dates. The trial court accepted the plaintiff's claim, but on appeal, it was noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the passing of consideration for these promissory notes.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim:
The trial court had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. However, the appellate court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the passing of consideration for the promissory notes. The improbability of the plaintiff lending a second large sum when no interest was paid on the first loan was highlighted. Additionally, the plaintiff did not produce income tax returns or bank statements to substantiate his financial capacity to lend such amounts.

3. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the suit amounts from the estate of the deceased Tiruppathi:
The appellate court concluded that the defendants were not liable to pay the suit amounts. The court observed that the plaintiff did not make any demand for repayment during Tiruppathi's lifetime, and there were inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the plaintiff's witnesses. The evidence suggested that the transactions were unlikely to have occurred as claimed by the plaintiff.

4. Whether the defendants had rebutted the initial presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The appellate court found that the defendants successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The improbabilities and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's case, such as the lack of demand for repayment and the absence of financial records, served as rebuttal proof. The evidence presented by DW 2, showing that the first appellant was in college at the time of the alleged loan transaction, further supported the defendants' case.

5. Whether the judgment of the learned trial judge is fair and proper:
The appellate court determined that the trial judge's judgment was not fair and proper. The trial judge had relied on evidence beyond the pleadings and failed to consider the improbabilities in the plaintiff's case. The trial judge's observations about the deceased's alleged illicit relationships were also found to be unwarranted and unsupported by the pleadings.

Conclusion:
The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that the promissory notes were supported by consideration and that the defendants had successfully rebutted the initial presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the defendants were not liable to pay the suit amounts from the estate of the deceased Tiruppathi. No costs were awarded.

---