Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA, J.
T. Balasubramanian
Versus
M. Kanthasamy, J.
S.A. No. 53 of 2013 & M.P. No. 2 of 2012
Decided on : 07-02-2013
Ex.B1 - Discharge Receipt - Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 2010(8) SCC 452, 2012(8) SCC 148 - The court discussed the importance of presenting the entire document when confronting a signature, the burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the impact of substantial questions of law on the decision. The court also highlighted the need for substantial questions of law to affect the final decision in a case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a judgment and decree against the defendant based on a promissory note and hand loan. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court modified the decree. The defendant filed a second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of both courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's reliance on Ex.B1, the discharge receipt, was crucial. It emphasized the importance of presenting the entire document when confronting a signature and discussed the burden of proof on the plaintiff. The court also highlighted the impact of substantial questions of law on the decision.
Issues: The substantial questions of law raised by the defendant were whether the courts wrongly considered the admitted signature of the plaintiff, the lack of reply from the defendant, and the admission of xerox copies of certain documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for substantial questions of law to affect the final decision in a case and discussed the burden of proof on the plaintiff. It also highlighted the importance of presenting the entire document when confronting a signature.
Final Decision: The court reduced the pendente lite interest from 18% to 6% and disposed of the second appeal without remanding the matter back to the trial court.
1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendant, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Poonamallee in A.S.No.33 of 2009 in partly modifying the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in O.S.No.62 of 2006.
2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:
a. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:
- to pass a judgment and decree against the defendant
- directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,88,000/- [Rupees one lakh and eighty eight thousand only] with interest at 18% per annum on the principal of Rs.1,33,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realisation
-and for cost of the suit (extracted as such)
based on the promissory note and also on the ground that hand loan was given by the plaintiff to the defendant.
b. The defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement.
c. Whereupon issues were framed by the trial court.
d. Up went the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 along with PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.B1.
e. Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit.
f. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, first appeal was filed by the defendant and the first appellate court modified the decree passed by the trial court by passing decree based on Ex.A1 the promissory note and dismissed the suit based on hand loan.
g. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, this second appeal has been focussed by the defendant on various grounds suggesting the following substantial questions of law.
"1. Whether the courts below are wrongly considered the Ex.B1 admitted signature of the plaintiff?
2. Whether the courts below are wrongly considered the Ex.A2 and A6, no reply from the defendant?
3. Whether the courts below have wrongly admitted xerox copies of the documents which is marked as Exs.A4 and Ex.A5 are correct? (extracted as such)"
4. Heard both sides.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant placing reliance on the grounds of second appeal would advance his argument, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:
(i) Ex.B1 the signature in the discharge receipt was admitted by the plaintiff even then, both the courts below did not give due importance to Ex.B1, but simply decreed the suit based on Ex.A1, the pro-note.
(ii) The defendant's son was suffering from brain tumour and hence the defendant had been attending his son ever since 2005 till 2012 and because of his pre-occupation with his son's health he could not give reply to the pre-suit notice and in the written statement he could not set out those details as only his Advocate was managing the case.
(iii) The plaintiff has not chosen to explain as under what circumstances he put Ex.B1, in that receipt. After signing so, he cannot disown the contents of the discharge receipt. But both the courts below failed to take note of all these salient features but simply accepted the case of the plaintiff for gospel truth and decreed the suit warranting interference in second appeal.
6. Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and slam down the pleas as put forth on the side of the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would pyramid her argument, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:
(i) The contentions as put forth on the side of the defendant are totally unbelievable and no one would be able to digest such pleas.
(ii) Had really Ex.B1 emerged as narrated by the defendant, then there is no knowing of the fact as to what made him not to give reply to the pre-su
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
