Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Anandan – Appellant
Versus
Gajendran – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1147 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided On : 16-10-2020
For the Appellant :T. Dhanyakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Jagadeesan, Advocate.
The main legal point established is the requirement of evidence to support claims, the applicability of relief acts, and the court's discretion in determining interest rates.
Headnote:
Pro-note - Recovery of Money - Tamil Nadu Agriculturist Relief Act - [Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, Tamil Nadu Agriculturist Relief Act] - The court discussed the execution of the pro-note, the evidence of consideration, and the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturist Relief Act. The court found that the pro-note was executed by the defendant, and the interest claimed was held to be exorbitant. The court decreed the money claim with reduced interest based on the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for recovery of money based on a pro-note against the appellant. The appellant denied borrowing any money and claimed that the pro-note was obtained as security for future flower supplies. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate Court decreed the suit based on the execution of the pro-note and consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the pro-note was executed by the defendant, and the interest claimed was exorbitant. The Court also noted the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturist Relief Act and the lack of evidence to support the defendant's claim of ownership of agricultural lands.
Issues: The issues included the execution of the pro-note, evidence of consideration, applicability of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturist Relief Act, and the entitlement to interest for a specific period.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the evidence of the pro-note's execution, lack of evidence to support the defendant's claim, and the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturist Relief Act to decide in favor of the respondent.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, and the money claim was decreed with reduced interest.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2009 made in A.S.No.42 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, Vellore District reversing the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2007 made in O.S.No.1745 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vellore, Vellore District.)
(The case has been heard through video conference)
1. The second appeal is preferred by the defendant, who suffers decree in a suit filed for recovery of money based on pro-note.
2. The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.1745 of 2004 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore for recovery of money based on the pronote dated 15.12.2001 alleged to have been executed by the appellant herein. According to the plaintiff/respondent, the appellant/defendant herein borrowed Rs.40,000/- and promised to repay it with 24% interest. However, inspite of issuing legal notice dated 23.07.2004, the defendant did not repay the money. Hence, suit for recovery of Rs.66,425/- being the principal amount Rs.40,000/- and interst Rs.26,425/- at the rate of 24% p.a.
3. The suit was defended by the appellant herein stating that he did not borrow any money from the plaintiff on 15.12.2001 or anyother date. No notice was issued to him demanding the pro-note money. He is an agriculturist cultivating jasmine plants and other flower plants. The plaintiff is having a flower Commission Mandy in Vellore market. The defendant is supplying flowers to the plaintiff. In the course of transaction, the plaintiff used to advance money, which will be deducted from the flower supplied. It is a running account maintained between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff obtained signed blank stamp paper as a security. When the defendant stopped supplying flowers to the plaintiff, disgruntled the suit is filed utilising the blank signed paper.
4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff marked 3 documents and examined 3 witnesses. The defendant has marked 5 documents and examined 2 witnesses. The Trial Court taking note of the fact that the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff are interested witnesses and their evidence is not reliable, accepted the defence of the appellant that the pro-note was executed as a security for the money received towards future supply of flowers. Relying upon Exs.B1 to B4, which are receipts bearing the name of 'S.L.S. Sri Sarala, Pushpa Viyabaram and Commission Viyabaram and Commission agent' the shop owned by the plaintiff and the phone number mentioned in the exhibits is in the name of the plaintiff, the trial Court held that the denial of PW-1 regarding business transaction between the appellant/defendant and respondent/plaintiff has false. The Trial Court therefore, held that though the execution of the pro-note is proved, the defendant's evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption regarding of consideration and hence, dismissed the suit.
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the Subordinate Court, Vellore. The lower appellate Court on reappreciating the evidence held that the subject pro-note Ex.A1 was executed by the appellant in the presence of the witnesses Mr.A.V.Mageswaran, Mr.A.G.Kuppan. The scribe of the pro-note was Mr.Vitheeswaran. One of the witnesses Mageswaran (PW-2) has deposed about the execution and passing of consideration. Regarding the defence taken by the appellant that the blank pronote was obtained from him in the Advocate Office, the lower appellate Court has posed the question, why the appellant has not taken any action immediately if the blank pro-note was obtained under duress. Therefore, the first appellate Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court and decreed the suit.
6. In the second appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant would contend that Ex.A1-pro-note was not supported by consideration. The plaintiff failed to produce his statement of a
