2024 (3) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erred to as their ranks in the suit. 3. O.S.No.71 of 2007 is a suit for recovery of money on the foot of promissory note. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.31,125/- was paid on 16.06.2004 and a promissory note was executed for due and valid consideration. It is the case of the plaintiff and it is found in the promissory note that the amount was received towards the marriage expenses of Priya, the daughter of the defendants and the said amount has to be repaid at the rate of 12% per annum. Demanding the repayment, a notice was issued on 15.09.2006. The defendants did not receive the notice. The plaintiff agreeing that the defendants were agriculturists, instead of 12%, sought 9% on the amount advanced. 4. The defence, which is ev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 22.07.2013. Thereafter, the matter had been posted before Mediation and Lok Adalat, but as the matter was not settled, it has been listed before me on 23.01.2024. 9. I heard Ms.G.Lavanya representing Mr.T.Saikrishnan and Mr.N.Subramani for the respective parties. 10. I heard the appeal on following questions of law: "1. Whether or not the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the promissory note is given for valid consideration or proving the execution of promissory note is sufficient in view of Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act? 2. Whether or not the burden shift on the respondent/defendants immediately on plaintiff proving the execution of Promissory Note? 3. Whether or not the burden is on the plaintiff to prov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... would point out that the address of the attesting witnesses had not been found on the promissory note and this causes huge doubt over the case of the plaintiff. 15. I have carefully considered the arguments on either side and gone through the records. 16. It is found from the evidence of PW1 to PW3 that the signature of the defendants had been proved on the document. The initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the document had been executed by the defendants and once the burden is discharged, the onus shifts to the defendants to show that the Court should not draw an inference under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 17. Now let me deal with the arguments seriatum of Mr.N.Subramani. Insofar as the non-impleadi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the witness box and admitted to their signatures on the document. 20. If at all the deposition of the attesting witnesses can be taken into consideration, it is for the purpose of coming to a conclusion about whether there is any suspicion on the execution of the document. All the attesting witnesses viz., two on the side of the plaintiff and one on the side of the defendants have categorically admitted to their signatures in the document, which implies that the execution of the document has prima facie been proved and the onus would now shift to the defendants to discharge the presumption that lays heavily on them under Section 118. No steps were taken by the defendants to disprove the signatures that have been made on the document, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....discussed the scope of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In a suit based on the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption under Section 118 is a crucial point on law and in fact, not having been referred to, it amounts to the learned Appellate Judge ignoring the vital provisions of law and thus, requires interference. 24. In the light of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. The judgment and decree in A.S.No.5 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Court at Tindivanam dated 28.07.2011 in reversing the judgment and decree of the court of District Munsif at Vanur in O.S.No.71 of 2007 dated 25.10.2010 is set aside. O.S.No.7....