Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1721
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
K. Sasikumaran – Appellant
Versus
G. Sasikumar – Respondent
S.A. No. 291 of 2008
Decided On : 01-04-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Rupert J. Barnabas, Advocate.
For the Respondent:G. Jehanathan, Advocate.
The importance of addressing crucial legal issues and providing a self-contained and complete judgment to enable proper adjudication.
Headnote:
Insufficiently Stamped Pronote - Loan Dispute - Indian Stamp Act, Section 35 - The court remanded the case back to the lower court for fresh adjudication on the issues of insufficiently stamped pronote, its admissibility as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, and the explanation given by the defendant in cross-examination as contemplated under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50000 from the plaintiff, who filed a suit for recovery. The defendant denied receiving the amount and claimed that the pronote was insufficiently stamped and misused by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower appellate court failed to address crucial issues related to the insufficiency of the stamped pronote and the admissibility of the defendant's explanation, leading to a remand of the case for fresh adjudication.
Issues: The insufficiency of the stamped pronote, its admissibility, and the defendant's explanation in cross-examination were not adequately addressed by the lower appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of addressing crucial issues and providing a self-contained and complete judgment, leading to the decision to remand the case for fresh adjudication.
Final Decision: The second appeal was disposed of, and the case was remanded back to the lower court for fresh adjudication on the identified crucial issues.
R. Mahadevan, J.
1. The judgment and decree, dated dated 28.3.2007 and made in A.S.No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2006 and made in O.S.No.1862 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, are under challenge in this memorandum of second appeal.
2. The appellant is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.1862 of 2004, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff.
3. For easy reference and for the sake of convenience, the appellant may hereinafter be referred to as the defendant and the respondent be referred to as the plaintiff wherever the context so require.
4. The necessary facts leading to the filing of this second appeal are as under:- a. On 22.12.2002 the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.50000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
a. In spite of repeated demands, since the defendant had not chosen to repay either the principal or interest, the plaintiff has filed the for the following relief:-
b. Directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.54,000/- together with interest on Rs.50000/- at 24% per annum from the date of the suit and till realisation and also for costs.
5. Since the defendant is working as Head Cook in Cadet Mess Air force Administrative College, Red Fields and earning Rs.8000/- and odd as monthly wages, the defendant is not entitled to the benefits under the Debt Relief Act.
6. The defendant resisted the suit by filing his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. The defendant denied that he never received Rs.50000/- from the plaintiff for interest. He borrowed money from the K.K.K. Finance, which was running by Mrs. Selvi w/o. Kattalai Kannan and a notice, dated 5.1.2001 was sent through a lawyer. A pro note given to the said finance company was obtained and misused with an ulterior motive.
7. Further, the plaintiff was working as an collection agent of the said finance company. The defendant also denies that he was receiving a sum of Rs.8000/- as monthly salary by working as chief chef in the administrative office of the Air Force.
8. The defendant had also filed a additional written statement saying that in the year 1996, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.10000/- and he paid the same along with the interest of Rs.12000/-. But he did not receive the unfilled and signed pro notes from the said finance company. Later, the said finance company was closed and approached the said Selvi and asked to return the unfilled and signed documents and pro notes. But the said selvi had assured that those documents were torn off.
9. The defendant has further stated that when the money borrowed from the said finance company and singed in the unfilled pronotes in which only 40 paise stamp was affixed, i.e., (20 + 20).
10. While so, the plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant in the year 2004 saying that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.50000/- in the year 2002.
11. The defendant has stated further that in the year 1998 the Stamp Act was amended and that instead of 0.20 paise stamp, one rupee stamp has to be affixed. However, even in the year 2002, only 0.40 paise stamp was affixed, which would show that the plaintiff had misused the pro note given to the said finance company.
12. On the aforesaid averments, the defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit.
13. Based on the material proposition of facts arising from the pleadings of the parties to the suit, the trial Court has formulated as nearly as four issues and one additional issue for the better adjudication of the suit.
14. In order to substantiate their respective cases, both the plaintiff and the defendant were directed to face the trial. Accordingly, the plaintiff Sasikumar has examined himself as P.W.1 and one more witness was examined as P.W.2 and during the course of their examination only one document has been marked as Ex.A.1. On the other hand, the defendant K. Sasikumaran wa
