The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Power Agent did not have authority to file the suit, the promissory note was not valid, and the Appellant/Plaintiff was a professional money lender who failed to produce account books as required by the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act.

1. The Appellant/Plaintiff (during his life time) has focused the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2001 in A.S.No.12 of 1998 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.1997 in O.S.No.24 of 1996 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Chidambaram.

2. During the pendency of Second Appeal, the Appellant/Plaintiff expired and as such Appellants 2 to 5 have been brought on record as his legal heirs.

3. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, while allowing the Appeal Suit No.12 of 1998 on 25.04.2001 in the Judgment has among other things observed that ‘the Appellant/ Plaintiff (deceased) has failed to produce the document for money lending and that there was no reason for withholding the same and has come to the consequent conclusion that he has no means to advance the amount to the Respondents/Appellants (Defendants) and allowed the appeal with costs by setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.24 of 1996 dated 23.12.1997 and dismissed the suit with costs.

4. Before the trial Court, during the trial of the main suit, 1 to 4 issues have been framed for adjudication. On behalf of the original Appellant/ Plaintiff(deceased), witnesses PW1 and PW 2 have been examined and Ex.A1 to A4 have been marked. On the side of the Respondents/Defendants witness DW1 has been examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 have been marked.

5. The trial Court, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a resultant conclusion that the Appellant/ Plaintiff (later deceased) is entitled to recover the suit amount from the Respondents/Defendants and accordingly, passed a decree as prayed for with costs.

6. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.24 of 1996, dated 23.12.1997, the Respondents/Defendants as Appellants preferred A.S.No.12 of 1998 before the First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal District Court, Cuddalore as aggrieved persons.

7. The First Appellate Court has allowed A.S.No.12 of 1998 filed by the Respondents/Defendants on 25.04.2001 by setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.24 of 1996, dated 23.12.1997 and consequently, dismissed the suit with costs by assigning the reasons therefor.

8. Feeling aggrieved against the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore in A.S.No.12 of 1998 dated 25.04.2001, the Appellant/Plaintiff (later deceased), during his life time, has projected this Section Appeal No.1358 of 2001 before this Court and after his death, Appellants 2 to 5 have brought on record as his legal heirs and they continue the proceedings as such.

9. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration:-

1) Whether the District Judge was not in error in finding that the Power of Attorney had no authority to institute the suit, especially when the permission had been granted by the trial Court for such institution in I.A.No.141 of 1996 on 25.03.1996 and so long as the District Judge in error in rendering the said finding?

2) Whether the provisions relating to Order III Rule 1 and 2 of CPC are not merely procedural and a curable defect and the defendants had waived the right to contest on the ground of want of proper authority for the institution of the suit?

3) Whether the Appellate Court was not in error in setting aside the well reasoned Judgment of the trial Court in finding that the promissory note had been written in the own hand writing of the 1st defendant and whether the reasoning was not perverse, as opposed to Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC?

4) Whether the Learned District Judge was not in error in applying the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Money Lendings Act to rule a presumption against the due passing of consideration and the genuine