TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lief of recovery of money and the said suit was decreed as prayed for with costs and has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.12,56,533/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the principal sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% p.a., till the date of realization to the respondent/plaintiff within three months from the date of decree, failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the decree as per law. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendant has filed the present appeal. 3.Brief facts to the case of the respondent/plaintiff, as per the plaint, are that the defendant is well known person to him and he borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 12.04.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rist and spare for other buses. Now, Siraj Ahamed of Puducherry and Murugan of Sorappattu have asked for financial assistance from the plaintiff through the Ismail Bhai of Lighthouse corner, Karur. The defendant arranged finance from Sri Rajalakshmi Finance, Karur and at the time of Borrowal of amount, one Subramani of above said finance has obtained general power of attorney in his name with regard to the property of the defendant. The loan amount borrowed is Rs.7,00,000/-. Even at the time of borrowal of amount, Sri Rajalakshmi finance in-charge has obtained unfilled promissory note and unfilled cheques from the defendant. The said finance has used one of the cheques and promissory note to file this false suit in order to grab the amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has not borrowed any money from the respondent and has not executed a suit promissory note. Actually, he has borrowed money from the Sri Rajalakshmi Finance, Karur and at the time of borrowal of amount, Sri Rajalakshmi Finance in-charge has obtained unfilled promissory note and unfilled cheques from the appellant. Subsequently, Sri Rajalakshmi finance set up the respondent and filed the present suit and also the respondent has filed a criminal case in C.C.No.324 of 2017, on the file of the Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karur and the same is pending. The appellant has never borrowed any money from the respondent and executed any document. Originally, he has borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from Sri Rajalakhsmi Finance and issued a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered the legal provisions. Therefore, the appeal has to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court have to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent on 12.04.2012 by executing the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest at the rate of Rs.1.00 per hundred per month. The appellant has not repaid any amount either towards principal or interest, in spite of repeated demands. Thereafter, the appellant issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 21.03.2003 and the same was presented for realization and it was returned on 02.04.2013. Therefore, he issued a statutory notice under Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the trial Court are liable to be confirmed. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, perused the pleadings, issues framed by the trial Court, oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced by both parties. 11. The case of the respondent is that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from him on 12.04.2012 and executed a promissory note as well as the cheque. Since the appellant has not repaid the money, the respondent has sent legal notice and filed the suit. In order to substantiate his case, the respondent was examined as P.W.1 and also examined two other witnesses. Though the main defence taken by the appellant is that he has not borrowed any money....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to the Rajalakshmi Finance and that was not established by the appellant. Therefore, there is a presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Once the signature is admitted and execution is proved by the appellant by examining the independent witnesses, there is a presumption that the appellant has executed a promissory note for the valuable consideration. Therefore, under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, no doubt, the said presumption is rebuttable presumption. The appellant has not rebutted the said presumption in the manner known to law. No doubt, the appellant need not prove his defence by direct evidence, it can be substantiated through preponderance of probabilities. Once execution and signature found in....