The defendant's evidence rebutting the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the plaintiff's obligation to maintain account books under the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 26.10.2017 passed in A.S.No.47 of 2018 on the file of the VI Additional District Court, Madurai, modifying the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 23.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.713 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai.)

1. The defendant is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.713 of 2015 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai for recovery of money of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum based upon a pro-note said to have been executed by the defendant on 10.10.2012. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.47 of 2017 before the VI Additional District Court, Madurai. The learned District Judge was pleased to reverse the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendant.

3. The plaintiff has contended that he is doing pawn broker business and money lending business and he is having license for doing the said businesses. According to the plaintiff, the defendant approached the plaintiff on 10.10.2012 and borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for construction of a house. After receipt of the said amount, the defendant had executed the suit pro-note in favour of the plaintiff accepting to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The defendant had also entrusted his original sale deed dated 15.02.2005.

4. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had failed to pay the interest or the principal amount and due to the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit for recovery of money.

5. The defendant filed a written statement contending that he had borrowed only a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the year 2010 to clear his sundry debts. At the time of borrowal, the plaintiff demanded exorbitant interest, but the defendant has no other way than to accept the said rate of interest. At the time of borrowal, the defendant signed in a blank pro-note and in a blank twenty rupees stamp paper. That apart, the plaintiff had demanded to produce more security and hence, the defendant deposited his original title deeds to the plaintiff on the same day.

6. The defendant further contended that he approached the plaintiff for reducing the interest rate, but the plaintiff refused to do so. Thereafter, the defendant settled the entire principal amount of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff along with interest. However, demanding more interest, the plaintiff refused to return the original title deed, pro-note and a blank twenty rupees stamp paper. The plaintiff started to give pressure to the defendant to register the property mentioned in the title deed deposited by the defendant. The plaintiff along with his henchmen threatened the defendant on 27.05.2015. Hence, he was forced to lodge a complaint as against the plaintiff before the police station. According to the defendant, the plaintiff had filled up the pro-note according to his whims and fancies. The defendant further contended that the suit pro-note was given by him in the year 2010 which cannot be used by the plaintiff to file a suit in the year 2015. According to the defendant, the suit is barred by limitation.

7. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the pro-note is surrounded by various suspicious circumstances. One of the witnesses of the said pro-note was examined as DW2 on the side of the defendant. He had deposed that the defendant had borrowed only Rs.50,000/- and that too in the year 2010 after signing a blank pro-note. Based upon the said deposition of DW2 and also on the ground that the plaintiff had not produced his account book to establish the disbursal of the loan in the year 2012, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

8. The First Appellate court found that the money lender license is not in the name of t