The burden of proof to disprove the existence of consideration for a negotiable instrument lies with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1of O.S. Rules R/W Order VII Rule 1 & 2 of CPC and Section 2(1)(C)(1) & Section 7 of the Commercial Court, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act of 2015 to direct the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,71,20,256/- as on date 28.11.2018 along with accrued interest at the rate of interest 24% per annum since the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of the amount and for the costs of the suit.)

1. The Plaintiff seeks to recover a sum of Rs.1,71,20,256/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until realization thereof.

2. The Plaintiff states that her father was the late V.B.Venkataraman. The Defendant was a tenant of the Plaintiff's father. The Defendant ran a school under the name and style of Padma Srinivasan Memorial Vidyalaya Matriculation School. In connection with making improvements to the school, the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff's father from time to time. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant borrowed money from her father on eleven different dates between 18.01.1997 and 20.12.2002. While borrowing a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the Defendant executed a registered mortgage (Ex.P1) dated 28.01.1997 in respect of a property situated at No.8, Bhavani Nagar, Lakshmipuram, No.34, Madhavaram Village. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant acknowledged the loan availed of by him in multiple tranches, as set out above, by executing a document (Ex.P3) dated 09.02.2002, whereby he acknowledged the receipt of a sum of Rs.4,65,000/. Subsequently, the Defendant also executed a sale agreement (Ex.P2) dated 03.08.2001 in respect of the mortgaged property and borrowed a further sum of Rs.3,85,000/-.

3. Between 08.02.2002 and 30.10.2003, the Plaintiff states that the Defendant borrowed further sums. In the aggregate, it is stated that a total sum of Rs.29,62,000/- was borrowed as on 30.10.2003. In relation thereto, it is stated that the Defendant executed four promissory notes. The Plaintiff refers to promissory notes dated 19.09.2002, 20.10.2002 and 20.12.2002, respectively, for sums of Rs.32,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.20,000/-, respectively. Eventually, it is stated that a promissory note dated 30.11.2015 was executed by the Defendant acknowledging receipt of a sum of Rs.1,45,12,735/-, and promising to repay the said sum with interest at 24% per annum from the date of execution of the promissory note. Based on such promissory note, the present suit was filed by limiting the interest claim to 6% per annum from 30.11.2015 to 28.11.2018. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks a decree for a sum of Rs.1,71,20,256/-.

4. Upon service of summons, the Defendant entered appearance through counsel. However, the Defendant did not file the written statement within time. Instead, the Defendant filed an application to reject the plaint. The said application was rejected by order dated 19.08.2021. Subsequently, by order dated 10.11.2021, this Court rejected the request of the Defendant to file the written statement by citing the case of SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Limited, (2019) 12 SCC 210 and recording that the Defendant had forfeited the right to file a written statement. By the same order, the Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover money from the Defendant on the basis of the pro-note executed by the Defendant dated 30.11.2015?

(2) For what other relief is the Plaintiff entitled to?

5. The Court further referred the matter to the learned Additional Master No.IV for the limited purpose of marking documents by recording that oral evidence is unnecessary. Pursuant thereto, the Plaintiff exhibited 16 documents which were marked as Exs.P1 to P16. Oral arguments were advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff by Mr. R.Ramanlaal, learned counsel, and on behalf of the Defendant by Mr. G. Thangavel, learned coun