Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4119
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
Arul
Versus
Mohan
A.S. No.538 of 2002
Decided On : 17-09-2010
For the Appellant:Rajaganapathy for T. Sai Krishnan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R. Arunmozhi, Advocate.
The validity of a pronote and the burden of proof in establishing the absence of consideration, as well as the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to establish the validity of the pronote.
Headnote:
Pronote - Borrowed Amount Dispute - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Section 44 - The court found that the pronote was supported by consideration for the full amount claimed by the plaintiff, and directed the defendant to pay the principal amount with reduced interest.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000 and executed a pronote, while the defendant disputed the amount borrowed and the validity of the pronote. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the pronote was supported by consideration for the full amount claimed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the pronote was valid and supported by consideration for the full amount claimed by the plaintiff, and directed the defendant to pay the principal amount with reduced interest.
Issues: Dispute over the amount borrowed and the validity of the pronote.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Section 44, which addresses partial absence or failure of money consideration in pronotes. The court also considered the burden of proof and the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to establish the validity of the pronote.
Final Decision: The First Appeal was allowed in part, and the court directed the defendant to pay the principal amount of Rs.20,000 with reduced interest at 9% per annum from the date of execution of the pronote till realization, along with proportionate costs to the plaintiff.
1. The Appellant/Defendant has projected this Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.2001 in O.S.No.9 of 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal.
2. The trial Court viz., the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record in the Judgment dated 21.08.2001 in O.S.No.9 of 2001 has inter alia observed that the Respondent/Plaintiff has proved that the Appellant/Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 20.01.1998 and executed that Ex.A1 suit pronote to the undertaking to pay the interest at the rate of 18% per annum of the principal amount mentioned therein but that the Appellant/Defendant has not proved that he has signed a printed blank pronote and handed over to the Respondent/Plaintiff on 11.07.1998, etc., and resultantly has come to the conclusion that the Appellant/Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 21.09.2008 and that the suit pronote is binding on the Appellant/Defendant and accordingly, passed a Decree with costs in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff.
3. Before the trial Court, in the main suit, four issues have been framed for adjudication. On the side of the Respondent/Plaintiff, Witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.A1 to A3 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Defendant, Witnesses D.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and Ex.B1 has been marked.
4. The point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is, Whether the Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to claim the principal amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the Appellant/Defendant?
CONTENTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS ON POINT:
5. According to the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant, the trial court has committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that the Appellant/Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- on reading the suit promissory note viz., Ex.A1 even without adverting to the case of the Appellant/Defendant and as a matter of fact, the finding of the trial Court that the Appellant/Defendant borrowed the suit amount on 20.01.1998 is without adverting Ex.A3 Reply Notice and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
6. It is the further contention of the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant that the trial court has not adduced reasons to repel the evidence of DW1 and DW2 and in fact, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit and that apart, in view of the contradictions of evidence between P.Ws.1 and 2, indeed the trial court should have rejected their evidence but unfortunately this has not been done by the trial court to the prejudice of the Appellant/Defendant.
7. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant urges before this Court that the trial court has committed an error in ignoring Ex.B1 Account Slip which is duly signed by the Respondent/Plaintiff and there is no explanation whatsoever by the Plaintiff in regard to the same and that apart, it is not the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff that he has been authorised by the Appellant/Defendant to fill in the blanks and as such, the trial court ought to have held that the Respondent/Plaintiff have fabricated Ex.A1 Pronote dated 20.01.1998 and filed the suit.
8. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant is that Ex.A1 Pronote dated 20.01.1998 is only supported for a consideration of Rs.8,000/- and also, that the Appellant/Defendant has examined one Ramesh witness in the pronote as DW2 in the case and he has tendered evidence on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant (DW1) to the effect that Ex.A1 Pronote is only for Rs.8,000/- and therefore, the Appeal filed by the Appellant/Defendant may be allowed by this Court to prevent an aberration of justice.
9. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff that the trial court has rejected Ex.B1 Account Slip and further, the trial court has come to a fair and just conclusi
