Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, J.
Panneerselvam - Appellant
Versus
Bhoopathi - Respondent
S.A.No.475 of 2019 & C.M.P.Nos.16426 & 7687 of 2019
Decided on : 05-07-2021
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96, 100 and Order XLI Rule 31 - Promissory Note - Fabricated Document - Whether Promissory Note is forged, Concocted or Fabricated Document - Whether any Material alteration in Promissory Note - Whether Decree and Judgments of court below are sub-stainable after both courts founds that there is an material alteration in Promissory Note - Whether court below is correct in decreeing suit by only taken into consideration of Expert opinion with regard to signature of defendant in report Mentioned in Q1 and Q2 however by Omitting Q3 Material Alteration made by Plaintiff erasing year in Promissory Note – Held, Construction of a document, involving application of any principle of law, is also a question of law - Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law - A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but Court below has decided matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle - If above said position/determinants or concomitants which go to make a substantial question of law as occurring in Section 100 CPC are applied, this Court has no hesitation in coming to conclusion that above questions do not qualify as substantial questions of law much less do they arise in case on hand as there is nothing debatable or nothing res integra or there is nothing to demonstrate that a settled principle of law has been over looked - Therefore, this facet of substantial question of law also flattened in case on hand - To be noted, case laws which were pressed into service have already been discussed and dispositive reasoning has also been set out supra - This Court tested whether there is a case for admission and whether any substantial question of law arises - In light of narrative thus far, discussion and dispositive reasoning it is clear that this Court has no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law arises - Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Captioned main second appeal i.e., S.A.No.475 of 2019 has been listed before this Virtual Court under the cause list caption 'NOTICE OF MOTION'.
2. Mr. S.Udayakumar, learned counsel of M/s. Karan and Uday (Law Firm) on behalf of appellant (defendant in the Court of first instance i.e., trial Court) and Mr.V.V.Sathya, counsel on record for lone respondent (plaintiff in the Court of first instance i.e., trial Court) are before this Virtual Court.
3. The proceedings of Hon'ble predecessor Judge on 27.03.2019 when the captioned second appeal and C.M.P were first listed reads as follows:
'Notice to the respondent returnable by 24.04.2019.
Private notice is also permitted.
Post on 24.04.2019.
There shall be an order of interim stay till then.'
4. A perusal of the above proceedings makes it clear that no substantial question of law has been formulated and the second appeal has not been admitted. This Court is informed that the captioned second appeal has therefore been listed now under the cause list caption 'NOTICE OF MOTION'.
5. As of today, the age of the lis which has led to the captioned second appeal is 9 years and in a few i.e., less than eight months from now it will be a decade old as the plaint was presented on 08.03.2012 by the respondent before this second appeal Court, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'plaintiff' for the sake of convenience and this plaint was taken on file as O.S.No.85 of 2012 on the file of 'Principal District Munsif's Court, Tirupathur, Vellore District' (hereinafter 'trial Court' for the sake of convenience). In this suit, lone appellant before this second appeal Court, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'defendant' for the sake of convenience and clarity was arrayed as the lone defendant.
6. Facts are fairly straight and simple. Plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.63,500/- (Rupees Sixty Three Thousand Five Hundred only) together with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In other words, it is a money suit. This money suit is on the foot of a promissory note dated 09.03.2009 (Ex.A1). This promissory note is for a sum of Rs.50,000/-.
7. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement dated 13.09.2012. A careful perusal of the written statement of the defendant running to 6 pages and 18 paragraphs brings to light that the burden of the song of the defendant's pleadings is, Ex.A1 promissory note is fabricated. It is the specific case of the defendant that he had initiated some other legal proceedings against the plaintiff with regard to sale of a property, which according to him, is a joint family property inter alia by issuing lawyer's notice dated 16.08.2014 (received by the plaintiff on 17.08.2014) followed by a suit in O.S.No.42 of 2014. The burden of song of the defendant's pleading in the written statement is, plaintiff, who was infuriated owing to the other civil proceedings initiated by the defendant, has fabricated Ex.A1 and has filed the suit. It is also the further case of the defendant (as can be culled out from the pleadings in the written statement) that the defendant had retired from service towards the end of year 2008 and in the initial months of year 2009 he had received terminal benefits of over Rs.10 lakhs. Besides this, it has also been pleaded that the defendant is receiving pension of over Rs.15,000/- and therefore, there is absolutely no need or necessity for the defendant to borrow Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff. In sum and substance, the defendant flatly disputed the promissory note and the transaction as well as the execution of the promissory note.
8. Trial Court framed two issues and an additional issue and a perusal of the issues and additional issue make it clear that the additional issue, which has been shown as Issue No.3, turns on whether Ex.A1 pronote is valid and whether an alteration therein buttresses defendant's case and this is the crux and gravamen of the lis between the parties.
9. In the trial Court, plaintiff examined himself
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
