Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 4051
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
P. DEVADASS, J.
Logarani
Versus
Kubenthiran
Second Appeal (MD) No. 527 of 2010
Decided on : 12-11-2014
For the Appellant:J. Gunasheelan Muthiah, Advocate.
For the Respondent:D. Rajkumar for G.R. Swaminathan, Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, specifically Section 118 and 20, and the burden of proof on the parties in relation to the execution of negotiable instruments.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Money Suit - Section 118, 20 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 118 and 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which create legal presumptions regarding the execution of negotiable instruments. The court emphasized the mandatory and rebuttable nature of these presumptions and the burden of proof on the parties involved.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a money suit to recover a loan advanced to the defendant, who denied executing the promissory note. The trial court and the first appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, applying Section 118 and 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had proved the execution of the promissory note, and the legal presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favor of the plaintiff had not been rebutted by the defendant. The court upheld the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was the execution of the promissory note and the applicability of legal presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory and rebuttable nature of legal presumptions under Section 118 and 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the burden of proof shifts between the parties based on the establishment of the presumptions.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court were upheld. The parties were left to bear their respective costs.
This Second Appeal arises out of a simple money suit in O.S.No.66 of 2004, instituted in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam. The defendant is the appellant.
2. The life history of the Second Appeal proceeds on the following lines.
3. Plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs.50,000/-to the defendant on 23.03.2002. Defendant executed in his favour Ex.A.1 suit promissory note dated 19.06.1999. Since the amount was not paid, plaintiff issued her Exs.A.2 and A.3, lawyer's notices. But, no reply, no money. So, this suit for recovery of money.
4. This money claim has been opposed by the defendant by filing a written statement.
5. The plea in the written statement proceeds on the following lines.
6. Defendant borrowed money from Thavamani, her husband's brother Rasu Thevar and his wife Rajathi under a mortgage bond dated 21.10.1999. Defendant was paying the interest. But they did not give her any receipt. Further, on the instruction of Raju Thevar, defendant paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards the principal to Raju Thevar's daughter and son-in-law, namely, Ananthi and Jeyakumar. However, no receipt was given. Since from November, 2001 payment of interest was pending, during December, 2001, at the insistence of Thavamani, Rasu Thevar and Rajathi the defendant gave them a blank paper and a blank promissory note with her signatures alone. However, Rasu Thevar used the name of his benami/plaintiff and filed the suit filling up the blank promissory note. He has also filed another suit in O.S.No.154 of 2002 using the other blank signed document. Defendant did not know the plaintiff. He did not borrow any money from him.
7. The trial Court framed issues and tried the suit. Plaintiff Kubenthiran and one Sundaramoorthi were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2, Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked, while defendant Logarani examined herself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 and B.2.
8. Considering the arguments of both and appreciating the evidence adduced, the trial Court accepting the case of the plaintiff, applied Section 118, 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and concluded that the defendant had failed to prove her case and thus decreed the suit.
9. Thereafter, the defendant had gone to the next appellate Court/Fast Track Court, Periyakulam. The learned appellate Judge considering the evidence and the arguments of both dismissed the appeal.
10. Thus, now the Second Appeal is before us.
11. Now, before us, the learned counsels exhibited their forensic skill by performing autopsy on the judgments of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. The Judgments and not the Judges are under attack.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that merely because the signature has been admitted, it cannot be said that the execution of the promissory note itself has been admitted.
13. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that at no point of time either in the pleadings or in the written statement or in the evidence, the defendant has admitted execution of Ex.A.1 as a promissory note. The consistent plea of the defendant is that her signature has been snatched from her on the compulsion of one Rasu Thevar and his supporters. Plaintiff Kubendran is a stranger to the defendant. He is his stooge, phantom and bubble. Kubendran is a veil of the said Rasu Thevar.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the trial Court as well as the 1st appellate Court have not even touched the defendant's case.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent /plaintiff would submit that the defendant is a knowing lady. Very wise. Intelligent. Fully conscious of her mental faculty, she had signed in the printed promissory note. Now, in order to wriggle out of the adverse situation, she is speaking otherwise in her written statement. Above all, under Exs.A.2 and A.3, detailing the borrowings and the execution of the promissory note, notices were sent to the defendant, she had received them, but kep
