TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period of repayment was sought to be extended for three more years. Finding no other alternative the plaintiff was constrained to agree to extend the time for repayment to three years. A debt acknowledgment letter was executed on 25.03.2008 undertaking to repay the amount with 12% interest in six instalments. Title deeds of the defendant bearing Nos. 4514/2007 and 4890/2007 and six cheques drawn from various accounts maintained by him with different banks were also drawn and issued to the plaintiff. The cheques were presented for encashment but were bounced due to want of funds in the accounts of the defendant. 4. At the time when each cheques were returned bounced, the factum was timely informed to the defendant through lawyer notices sent to him and those were also evidenced as received by him. But, the defendant neither repaid the amount as demanded nor cared to sent a reply to the notice. Thereupon the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit as O.S. No. 74/2011 for realisation of six lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation from the defendant and his assets. 5. The defendant on his appearance in the suit fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollows: "Defendant shall pay a sum of Rs. 8,28,864/- (Rupees eight lakhs twenty eight thousand eight hundred and sixty four only) to plaintiff with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation for the principal sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Defendant shall pay cost also." 8. According to Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, the contentions of the defendant that the cheques had been misused by the plaintiff and on the strength of falsely created documents, the plaintiff resorted to file the suit seeking realisation of excess sum than due, were successfully established by the defendant but on an erroneous appreciation of the evidence adduced by him the trial court decreed the suit. According to him, a version highly inconsistent with that of PW 1, was spoken by PW 2, but the trial court had decreed the suit in favour of PW 1 solely relying on his solitary evidence. 9. According to the learned counsel, in view of the distinct dissimilarity visible to the naked eye itself in the handwriting in which the date and other entries have been entered into the cheques, the trial court had decreed the suit. According to him, a prudent man would not grant three more years time for re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the relevant time of availing of loan. 11. Borrowal of the money stands admitted by the defendant. Issuance of cheques, six in numbers were also admitted by the defendant. According to him, at the relevant time of issuance of those all entries except the dates were filled and given. Therefore, there is no dispute that the cheques were issued with figures showing the amount, duly filled up. 12. The cheques were marked in evidence by the plaintiff as Exts. A4, A9, A14, A19, A24 and A29. A perusal of the cheques would reveal that amounts were written in those respectively as Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/-. When the filling up of the cheques with reference to the amount stands undisputed by the defendant, the claim of the plaintiff in the suit that a total sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was due at the time when the cheques were issued and Rs. 8,28,864/- (Principal sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- and interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum) is due to him at the relevant time of filing of the Suit, stands probabilised. 13. The stand of the defendant was that Rs. 4,75,000/- was borrowed from defendant and the interest charged on the su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prima facie authority to make or complete those. Therefore, since the defendant has handed over the six signed cheques even with entries other than the figure showing the money filled up, as holder of it the plaintiff is given prima facie authority by Section 20 of the N.I. Act to complete it. Therefore, the argument that by entering the dates in the cheques, the plaintiff has materially altered the cheques will not sustain and is discarded. 19. The plaintiff has established before the trial court that the cheques on presentation for encashment were bounced and the factum of dishonour was duly informed to the defendant by serving lawyer notices. Strictly no materials are forthcoming to establish any repayment towards the interest or the principal sum borrowed. The plaintiff has tendered oral evidence to establish his claim for realisation of money. He has also produced relevant documentary evidence to justify his claim. 20. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the defendant refer to presumption contemplated under Section 118 N.I. Act. In Veluchandran v. Vilasini Amma and others [ILR 2020 (2) Kerala 444], this Court has held that only when the execution of the chequ....