Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 105
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL
M. Elamuhilan
Versus
Jayamurugan Cycle Mart, rep. By Managing Partner, P.R. Subramanian
S.A.No.86 of 1999 & C.M.P.No.4607 of 1999
Decided On :Decided On : 05-01-2012
For the Appellant: No Appearance.
For the Respondent:J. Nandagopal for M/s. K. Chandrasekar, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of ledger accounts, the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the authority of a managing partner to file a suit on behalf of the firm.
Headnote:
Pronote - Money Lending - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Indian Evidence Act - The court discussed the execution of the pronote, consideration, presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the admissibility of ledger accounts in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant/Defendant filed a Second Appeal against the lower court's decision to confirm the judgment and decree in a money lending case. The trial court found in favor of the Respondent/Plaintiff, and the First Appellate Court affirmed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was not barred by limitation, the necessary parties were not required to be joined, and the pronote had been executed with consideration. The court dismissed the Second Appeal and affirmed the lower courts' judgments.
Issues: The issues included the limitation of the suit, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the execution of the pronote.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation, the Managing Partner could file the suit on behalf of the firm, and the pronote had been supported by consideration.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were affirmed. The Appellant/Defendant was granted three months to make the payment.
1. The Appellant/Defendant has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.07.1998 in A.S.No.3 of 1998 passed by the Learned Additional Sub Judge, Nagapattinam in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.1997 in O.S.No.62 of 1996 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur.
2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Additional Sub Judge, Nagapattinam, while passing the Judgment in Appeal, has, among other things, observed that For Ex.A.1-Pronote, the plea of the Respondent/Plaintiff that the amount has been paid to the Appellant/ Defendant is accepted and also that for Ex.A.1-Pronote a sum of Rs.17,000/-has been received by the Appellant/Defendant from the Respondent/Plaintiff and that the Appellant/Defendant has executed the pronote to and in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff and the said finding of the trial Court is a correct one and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal with costs.
3. Before the trial Court, in the main suit 1 to 5 issues have been framed for determination. On behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff, witness P.W.1 has been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Defendant, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 have been marked.
4. The trial Court, on an analysis of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, has come to a consequent conclusion that the Appellant/Defendant is received a sum of Rs.17,000/- from the Respondent/Plaintiff and executed a suit pronote, which has been proved by the Respondent/Plaintiff and resultantly, decreed the suit by directing the Appellant/Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.23,120/-and to pay interest at the rate of 12% for the principal sum of Rs.17,000/-from the date of suit till date of judgment and to pay 6% interest from the date of Judgment till date of payment together with costs.
5. Earlier, the Appellant/Defendant aggrieved against the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court dated 28.11.1997 in O.S.No.62 of 1996 has preferred A.S.No.3 of 1998 before the First Appellate Court as an aggrieved person.
6. The First Appellate Court viz., the Additional Sub Judge, Nagapattinam, after contest, has dismissed the A.S.No.3 of 1998 (filed by the Appellant/Defendant) on 22.07.1998, thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court passed in the suit.
7. Feeling aggrieved against the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.3 of 1998, the Appellant/Defendant has projected this Second Appeal before this Court.
8. At the time of admission, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration:
(i) Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?
(ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
(iii) Whether the Courts below erred in law and misdirected themselves in granting a decree in the absence of proof of execution on passing of consideration?
The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Questions of Law 1 to 3:
9. A perusal of Memorandum of Grounds in Second Appeal filed by the Appellant/Defendant indicates that the Appellant/Defendant has taken a ground that the suit is out of time and the pronote on which the money has been taken is dated 03.05.1986, but the suit has been filed on 12.06.1989 and that the Plaint has been signed only on 05.06.1998 and that the suit is time barred. But no issue has been framed by the trial Court.
10. Another ground on the Appellant/Defendant (taken in the grounds of Second Appeal) is that the First Appellate Court has failed to neglect to enquire whether the business of having lent the money is within the parameters of the partnership deed and further, if the money has been advanced on the basis of friendship, then, the Respondent/Plaintiff ought to have filed the suit in his individual name and not in the name of partnership.
11. The stand of the Appellant/Defendant (as seen from the grounds of Second Appeal) is that the Respondent/Plaintiff has no
