The court upheld the validity of the promissory note based on the plaintiff's establishment of valid consideration, and disbelieved the defendant's defenses due to lack of evidence and inconsistency in his statements.

1. The defendant is the appellant in a suit for recovery based on a promissory note.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant on 1/1/2003, borrowed a sum of Rs.90,000/-from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family expenses and purchase of a land and agreed to repay with 12% interest and executed a promissory note for the same. Despite several reminders as the defendant did not repay the amount, the plaintiff issued a notice on 5/1/2005 which was returned unserved. Hence the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money.

3. The defendant contested the suit inter alia that he borrowed only Rs.10,000/- in the year 1997 and signed a blank promissory note. As the defendant could not repay the said sum, the plaintiff had demanded Rs.20,000/-. However, the defendant had been paying Rs.2,000/- as interest every month and for the past seven or eight years, the defendant has paid Rs.2 lakhs towards interest alone. Though through the friends, mediation was conducted, it did not come through and the plaintiff has filed the suit.

4. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law has been formulated for consideration:-

“Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below could be sustained when the respondent as plaintiff has not proved the passing of consideration and also the place of execution, which is an essential requisite in a suit on a promissory note?”

5. The defendant has contended that the signature in Ex.A.1 is not signed by him and the same has been forged by the plaintiff. The reason assigned by him for the same is that he used to sign only in 'Tamil', but in Ex.A.1, the defendant's signature is in 'English'. He further contended that Dws.2, 3 and 4, who are the colleagues of the defendant in his office had knowledge about the borrowal of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff and it was not a sum of Rs.1 lakh as demanded by the plaintiff in the suit. The above said defences were taken by the defendant only at the time of trial and the same had not been pleaded in his written statement.

6. Admittedly, in this case, the defendant had signed in a blank promissory note in 1997 and borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/-. It is not the case of the defendant that the said promissory note executed by him in 1997 has been misused by the plaintiff. As the defendant had not established the date and time, the month and the place where the said promissory note was executed, the Courts below have refused to accept the case of the defendant. The defendant also had stated that he was paying Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/- per month to the plaintiff. The defendant is an Executive Engineer in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and he would not have repaid the interest of Rs.2,000/- every month for several years without even getting a receipt or getting it acknowledged by the plaintiff. The defendant has not filed any scrap of evidence for the repayment of interest as alleged by him. Therefore, the Courts below disbelieved the case of the defendant without any document.

7. The defendant also had alleged that the interest was deducted from his salary account and was paying to the plaintiff. From the evidence, it can be seen that under the suit promissory note Ex.A.1, the defendant has accepted the borrowal of money from the plaintiff at an earlier date also. While so, without any pleading or corroborative evidence being let in by the defendant for the same, the contention of the defendant that he repaid the amount periodically was refused by the Courts below. The defendant had denied the signature in Ex.A.1 promissory note contending that he used to sign only in 'Tamil' normally and that the signature in Ex.A.1 is signed in 'English'. The Courts below had compared the same with the signatures of the defendant signed in written statement and also in the evidence. In all the above documents, he had signed only in 'English'. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that he would sign only in 'Tamil' and not in 'English' was