The judgment and decrees of the Courts below were bad for want of production of Succession Certificate by the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.254 to 256 of 2006, even before passing the decree, in view of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act.

1. These second appeals are focussed by the defendant animadverting upon the common judgment and decrees dated 29.8.2008 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tirupur, in A.S.Nos.66, 65, 64, 67, 63 and 62 of 2007 confirming the common judgment and decrees dated 21.6.2007 passed by the District Munsif, Tirupur, in O.S.Nos.251 to 256 of 2006, which were filed for recovery of the amounts referred to in the respective suits.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these second appeals would run thus:

(i) There were six suits filed by the respective plaintiffs as under: Suit No. Plaintiff Principal amount Rs. Suit amount including interest accrued as on the date of suit 51/06 Philomina 22,000/-31,720/-252/06 Philomina 25,000/-38,463/-253/06 Philomina 36,170/-36,170/-254/06 Philomina, Devaraj and Nirmala 25,000/-36,170/-255/06 Philomina, Devaraj and Nirmala 20,000/-28,837/-256/06 Philomina, Devaraj and Nirmala 25,000/-38,463/-The suits were resisted by the defendant by filing the written statements.

(ii) Whereupon issues were framed. On consent, joint trial of all the suits were conducted. On the side of the plaintiffs, Philomina examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked Exs.A1 to A27. On the side of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B1.

(iii) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suits.

(iv) Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the common judgement and decrees of the trial Court, appeals were filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the common judgement and decrees of the trial Court.

4. Challenging and inveighing the common judgment and decrees of the Courts below, these second appeals have been filed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:

(i) The Courts below failed to take into consideration the evidence adduced on the defendants side to prove the discharge.

(ii) The Courts below fell into error in not seeing the falsity involved in the explanation given by the plaintiffs relating to the cheques issued in the name of Devaraj-who is the son of the deceased Srinivavan and Philomina(the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.251 to 253 of 2006).

(iii) Originally the plaintiffs have not come forward with the plea that Devaraj was an employee of the defendant. However, in order to explain away falsely, they dished out a theory as though the said Devdaraj, in whose name the cheques were allegedly issued by the defendant, happened to be the employee of the defendant and that those cheques were issued for being encashed by Devaraj for the purpose of discharging his official duties. Such far fetched pleas, ought to have been discarded by the Courts below.

5. The learned counsel for the defendant, reiterating the grounds of appeals, would pray for setting aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and for dismissing the suits or in the alternative, for passing money decrees depressed by the amounts covered by the cheques issued by the defendant in favour of Devaraj.

6. While admitting the seconds appeals, my learned predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:

"a. Is not the judgment and decree of the Courts below vitiated by its failure to consider the evidence on record in its proper perspective?

b. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to let in evidence with regard to discharge especially when the same have not been pleaded

c. Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below are vitiated by its failure to consider the principles stated in Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in its proper perspective."

(extracted as such)

7. I have now suo motu formulated the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below were bad for want of production of Succe