TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fendant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- together with subsequent interest at 6% per annum Rs. 3,00,000/- from the date of plaint till realization and for cost. 3. This matter is taken up for admission and decided. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court. 5.The case of the plaintiff, as per the averments made in he plaint, in short, reads as follows : On 22.09.2008, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for her urgent need and family expenses and also executed 3 promissory notes at Muthulapuram Village on the same date for Rs. 1,00,000/- and also agreed to repay the same on demand by signing in the promissory note each Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the said Muthuveerapn had filed up the particulars in the three promissory notes, which were blank, except the signatures, by incorporating the amount as Rs. 4,00,000/-. There is no consideration for the suit promissory notes and thus there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is liable for dismissal. 7. On the side of the the plaintiff, 3 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and 5 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A5. On the side of the defendant, the defendant herself was examined as D.W.1 and marked 3 documents as Exs. B1 to B.3. 8. On analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has allowed the suit, as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred an appeal in A.S. No.18 of 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B.3? 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ defendant would submit that the alleged suit pronotes have been fabricated in the name of the defendant, which were given as security and hence, the respondent cannot maintain the suit for recovery of money, when the plaintiff has not lent any amount to the defendant and pronotes are not supported by consideration, but the Court take the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, which is rebuttable one and decreed the suit without considering evidence. The courts below miserably failed to note that the plaintiff has no sufficient means in his hand to lent money to the outsiders, as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.2. The Courts below committed serious error....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fag end of three years, the relationship between the plaintiff and the witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the relationship between the plaintiff and Muthuveerappan form whom the defendant borrowed money and the evidence of P.W.3 to prove that the plaintiff has no sufficient means to lent money to the defendant and all the above circumstances are clearly established the case of the defendant and disproved the case of the plaintiff. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant / defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff and also perused the materials available on record. 14. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for which, the defendant executed 3 promissory notes each for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act. The defendant herself was examined as D.W.1 and the notice sent by Muthu Veerappan stated in the written statement and the reply notice received by the defendant her husband and one Eswari has been marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and unregistered othi deed executed by the defendant and her husband in favour of said Muthuveerappan is marked as Ex.A3. It is admitted by P.W.1 that the said Muthu Veerappan is the son-in-law of the defendant 16. P.W.1 in his cross-examination had deposed as follows:- Therefore, it is clear that P.W.1 had not admitted that he had no means to lend money. Further, there is no pleading regarding the means of the plaintiff to lend money and further suggestion was also not put to the plaintiff whether he had no m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as specifically taken up by this Court to reach the root of the controversy, appears to be based upon correct appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. Hence, the present appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. ============= Document 1 'நான௠விவசாய தொழில௠செயà¯à®¤à¯ வரà¯à®•à®¿à®©à¯à®±à¯‡à®©à¯. எனகà¯à®•à¯ சொநà¯à®¤à®®à®¾à®© 60 செணà¯à®Ÿà¯ நிலம௠மà¯à®¤à¯à®¤à¯à®²....