The plaintiff must prove the lending of loan amounts to establish a claim for recovery under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and misjoinder of causes of action can render a suit bad in law.

JUDGMENT :

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

1. This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Additional Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Chennai, dated 21.04.2010 in O.S. No. 2868 of 2009, in and by which, the plaintiff-s suit was for a direction to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 8,15,750/- together with interest thereof at 18% per annum of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the date of the plaint and till the date of realisation, which was dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant is a Landlord. The first defendant introduced the 2nd and 3rd defendants as his relatives. The plaintiff being a deserted woman was having a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs in her Postal Savings Account and upon insistence and guarantee of the first defendant, the plaintiff lent a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- and the 3rd defendant also executed a document and handed over two cheques drawn on ICICI Bank also as security for repayment of the said amount. Once again on 03.03.2007, the 2nd defendant executed two promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff at Chennai, viz. one for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and another for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. However, after the said borrowal, the defendants stopped paying the interest on both loan amounts. The plaintiff found it difficult to pay the rent. For some time, the first defendant also did not insist for the monthly rent since the money was not repaid. The plaintiff insisted for repayment and even lodged a Police complaint. Thereafter, the first defendant behaved in a manner so as to outrage her modesty, and neither the advance amount of one lakh was repaid nor the said amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- along with accrued interest of Rs. 1,60,750/-, in all totalling of Rs. 8,15,750/- was repaid. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 25.11.2007. Thereafter, a criminal case in Crl. M.P. No. 1598 of 2008 was filed before the XVII - Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet. Even though in the said investigation, the first defendant produced a message that the 2nd and 3rd defendants will repay the amount, but, the amount was not paid. Hence, the suit.

3. The suit was resisted by the first defendant by filing a written statement. The first defendant denied that he ever introduced the 2nd and 3rd defendants to the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant and the plaintiff were classmates and they were known to each other. As far as the tenancy is concerned, the monthly rent was Rs. 3,500/- and the advance amount was Rs. 20,000/-. Apart from the Landlord and Tenant relationship, the first defendant has got nothing to do with the borrowal. He did not stand as a guarantor. Only because the plaintiff defaulted in payment of rent and the defendant is taking steps for evicting her, vindictively a Police complaint was lodged against him and also he has been arrayed as the first defendant in the suit.

4. The 2nd defendant filed a separate written statement, which was adopted by the 3rd defendant, in which it is admitted that the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff are natives of Chidambaram District and they are school mates. They did know each other. The 2nd defendant-s husband got introduced with the husband of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant-s husband suffered a loss in his business and borrowed several amounts from third parties and finally committed suicide on 25.07.2007. But he did not mention any liability with the plaintiff in his suicide note. Even though, the first defendant has executed a letter dated 04.05.2006, and the same cannot be termed as a promissory note. As far as the two promissory notes dated 03.03.2007 are concerned, and the same are not supported by considering that the plaintiff did not have any wherewithal to lend such a huge amount. The plaintiff did not issue a pre-suit notice to the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The promissory note shows as if it is obtained at Pattukottai in printed format and therefore, is abused by the plaintiff.

5. On the strength of the above said pleadings, the Tr