Plaintiffs' Appeal Dismissed for Failure to Prove Borrowal or Execution

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the borrowal or execution of the promissory note and memorandum of deposit of title deeds. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged forgery and fabrication of promissory notes and guarantee letters.
2. Alleged coercion in obtaining signatures for creating an equitable mortgage.
3. Entitlement of the plaintiffs to recover Rs. 12,68,250/- with interest.
4. Validity of the mortgage deed.

Summary:

1. Alleged Forgery and Fabrication:
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants borrowed Rs. 10,00,000/- from the deceased T.K.Kuppusamy and executed a promissory note dated 21.09.2003 with an interest rate of 18% per annum. The defendants, however, contended that the promissory note and guarantee letters were fabricated and their signatures were forged. The Trial Court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the authenticity of the signatures on the promissory note and guarantee letters. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not take steps to compare the disputed signatures with admitted ones, leading to the conclusion that the signatures did not belong to the defendants.

2. Alleged Coercion in Obtaining Signatures:
The third defendant admitted his signature on the memorandum of deposit of title deeds but claimed it was obtained under duress by holding the first defendant hostage. The Trial Court found no evidence to support this claim as no police complaint was lodged by the defendants regarding the alleged coercion.

3. Entitlement to Recover Rs. 12,68,250/- with Interest:
The plaintiffs sought to recover Rs. 12,68,250/- with interest, claiming that the defendants borrowed the amount and failed to repay it. The Trial Court found inconsistencies in the plaintiffs' evidence, including material alterations in the account books and lack of corroborating evidence. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove the borrowal and execution of the promissory note, thus dismissing the suit.

4. Validity of the Mortgage Deed:
The plaintiffs argued that the third defendant created an equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds of his property. The Trial Court observed that while the memorandum of deposit of title deeds was admitted, the borrowal itself was not proved. The court noted that the account books contained interpolations and alterations, and the plaintiffs failed to establish the consideration for the mortgage.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's findings, concluding that the plaintiffs did not prove the borrowal or the execution of the promissory note and memorandum of deposit of title deeds. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---