Court upholds validity of promissory notes, dismisses alteration claim. Plaintiff awarded recovery, interest, costs. Cash payment issue rejected.

The court found the promissory notes valid, dismissing the defendants' claim of material alteration. The plaintiff, a financial business, proved the genuineness of the transaction, entitling them to recover Rs. 2,49,00,000 with 12% interest per annum and suit costs. The defendants' argument regarding cash payment violation was rejected, clarifying that any breach would trigger tax authorities' action, not invalidate the transaction. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting the requested reliefs and directing the defendants to pay the specified amounts.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the suit promissory notes.
2. Entitlement of the plaintiff to the suit amount with interest.
3. Other reliefs to which parties are entitled.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the Suit Promissory Notes
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of money based on nine promissory notes dated 19.06.2015. The plaintiff, a financial business company, alleged that the defendants borrowed Rs. 2,49,00,000/- with a promise to repay within 30 days and provided property documents as collateral. The defendants denied executing the promissory notes in favor of the plaintiff, claiming they were for a different transaction with Adeshwar Investment. However, the court found no acceptable explanation from the defendants on how the plaintiff obtained the original property documents of the 3rd defendant. The court concluded that the promissory notes were executed for valid consideration, invoking the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and dismissed the defendants' plea of material alteration due to different ink used.

Issue 2: Entitlement to the Suit Amount with Interest
The defendants argued that the cash payment of Rs. 2,49,00,000/- violated Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act and an RBI circular. The court noted that Section 269 SS prohibits the receiver from accepting cash above Rs. 20,000/-, not the payer. The court also observed that any violation of this section would lead to tax authorities' action, not invalidation of the transaction. The plaintiff produced income tax returns reflecting the suit transaction, thereby proving the genuineness of the transaction. The court rejected the defendants' objection to the mode of proof of these returns, as they were marked without initial objection.

Issue 3: Other Reliefs
The court concluded that the plaintiff proved its case by preponderance of probabilities, supported by the production of original title documents, implied admission of signatures, reflection of the transaction in income tax returns, and statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the principal amount with 12% interest per annum from 19.06.2015 until realization and the cost of the suit.

Conclusion:
1. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 2,49,00,000/- from the defendants.
2. The defendants are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19.06.2015 to the date of realization.
3. The defendants are directed to pay the cost of the suit to the plaintiff.

---