2018 Supreme(Mad) 4439

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Veeraiya & Another - Appellants
Versus
Baskaran - Respondent
S.A. (MD) No. 22 of 2015 & M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 29-11-2018

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 100 - Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 - Sections 118 and 20 - Challenge - Suit for recovery of money - Suit for promissory notes - Purpose of purchasing lands and also for meeting cultivation expenses borrowed from plaintiff and in evidence of borrowal of aforesaid sums from defendants had executed suit promissory notes in favour of plaintiff promising to repay borrowed sums with interest as recited in suit promissory notes and thereafter defendants failed to repay borrowed sums despite repeated demands from plaintiff to repay same and on other hand defendants with a view to evade repayment were attempting to alienate property belonging to them so as to deprive plaintiff from taking action against defendants and furthermore defendants had also not purchased lands out of borrowed sums as represented by them and hence according to plaintiff he has been necessitated to lay suit for recovery of money - Case of defendants in brief is that suit laid by plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and according to defendants they had been cultivating lands of plaintiffs father on vaaram basis and accordingly plaintiffs father and defendants used to share produce equally as per arrangement entered into between them and in respect of another set of lands also defendants had been cultivating lands belonging to plaintiffs father on vaaram basis and used to share produce in ratio of as recited in written statement and accordingly it is put forth by defendants that produce had been shared between plaintiffs father and defendants as agreed to and after plaintiff had taken over management he had procured entire produce derived from labour of defendants in lands and failed to pay value of produce to defendants and till plaintiffs father was managing lands there was no dispute between parties and only after plaintiff had taken over management issues started arising between parties and it is further pleaded by defendants that in respect of cultivation of lands belonging to plaintiffs father on vaaram basis according to them plaintiffs father used to obtain their signatures in blank stamped promissory notes every year and at year end used to obtain their signatures in fresh stamped promissory notes and destroy promissory notes obtained from them earlier and same had been practice between parties over a period of time and accordingly defendants also after plaintiff had taken over management of lands had put their signatures independently in blank stamped promissory notes and handed over same to plaintiff and according to defendants plaintiff taking advantage of same appears to have created and forged suit promissory notes based on signatures obtained from defendants in blank stamped promissory notes and therefore according to defendants they had not borrowed any sum from plaintiff as recited in plaint nor executed suit promissory notes in evidence of borrowal of said sums from plaintiff and on other hand it is stated by them that plaintiff had filled-up blank promissory notes in which signatures of defendants had been obtained as above stated and accordingly he had also recited therein that sums had been borrowed by defendants for purchase of lands however knowing fully well that defendants had not purchased any lands out of alleged borrowed sums it is stated by defendants that plaintiff was forced to aver in plaint that defendants had not purchased any lands out of borrowed sums - Whether First Appellate Court is correct and justified in applying presumption under Sections 20 and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act even in absence of plaintiff proving execution of promissory note by defendants by legally acceptable evidence despite specific denial by defendants? Is judgment of first appellate Court drawing presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act sustainable in law when first appellate Court has completely overlooked inconsistencies and contradictions in evidence of sufficient by itself to rebut any such presumption? Whether first appellate Court is correct and justified in reversing well considered judgment of Trial Court without discussing and disagreeing with findings of Trial Court and without setting out reasons for reversing same? Is first appellate Court correct in placing burden of proof on defendants to disprove their signatures in promissory notes and also to disprove passing of consideration as it would amount to requiring defendants to prove negative? - Held, defendants had admitted their signatures in suit promissory notes and inasmuch as according to defendants they used to put their signatures in blank stamped promissory notes every year and accordingly they had also admitted that they had put their signatures in blank stamped promissory notes in favour of plaintiff and as they had taken plea that plaintiff had misused above said signatures obtained from them in blank stamped promissory notes and forged suit promissory notes inasmuch as by way of same defendants had clearly admitted their signatures in suit promissory notes according to plaintiffs counsel presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act gets invoked and in such view of matter defendants having admitted their signatures in suit promissory notes burden initially rests only upon defendants to establish that suit promissory notes are bad for want of passing of consideration as recited therein and inasmuch as defendants had failed to discharge above said onus resting upon them according to plaintiffs counsel First Appellate Court is wholly justified in accepting plaintiffs case on failure of defendants to discharge their burden and therefore according to him Judgment and Decree of First Appellate Court require no interference and have to be confirmed by this Court - When defendants had taken plea that plaintiff is used to obtain their signatures in blank stamped promissory notes and based on same created suit promissory notes and further had also taken plea that plaintiff had later filled-up suit promissory notes to suit his convenience in such view of matter initial burden shall rest only upon defendants and defendants having failed to discharge and rebut same it is seen that First Appellate Court is correct in invoking Section 118 of N.I. Act and thereby upholding plaintiffs case - As per Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act until contrary is proved that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration - In these appeals appellants/plaintiffs filed suits stating that promissory notes were executed by defendants - Therefore specific case was that defendants executed promissory notes and they did not pay amount and therefore suits were filed for recovery of amount - It is not case of plaintiffs that defendants put their signatures in blank promissory notes and that was later filled up by plaintiffs and filed suits - On other hand defence of defendants was that they only signed in blank promissory notes and they have not executed documents - Therefore when plaintiffs filed suits on promissory notes stating that promissory notes were executed by defendants and when defendants contended that they only signed in blank promissory notes which were later filled up initial burden is on defendants to prove that they have only signed in blank promissory notes which were later filled up by plaintiffs - Without discharging initial burden that blank promissory notes with only signatures were given defendants are not entitled to contend that plaintiffs are not entitled to draw presumption under section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Appeal Dismissed