The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the presumption of execution of a promissory note. The court's decision was influenced by the failure of the defendants to rebut the presumption.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under order 41 R 1 r/w Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 18.11.2009 made in O.S.No.766 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1) at Coimbatore.)

1. This Appeal Suit arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 18.11.2009 in O.S.No.766 of 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1) at Coimbatore, in and by which, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money based on the suit pronote, Ex.A-1, was decreed in part that is to say, while allowing the principle amount, the interest was allowed to the tune of 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendants have filed the present Appeal Suit.

2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the appellants/defendants are the relatives of the respondent/plaintiff. They used to periodically borrow the amounts from the respondent/plaintiff and repay the same in respect of their financial businesses. Therefore, on 11.11.1999, the appellants/defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and in consideration thereof, executed a pronote promising to repay the same with interest at the rate of 30% per annum and thereafter failed and neglected to repay the same. The respondent/plaintiff issued a pre-suit notice in Ex.A-2 and even though the second appellant/second defendant received the same, no reply or positive response was made on behalf of the appellants/defendants and hence the suit.

3. The appellants/defendants resisted the suit by contesting that it is false to state that they borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as on 11.11.1999 and executed the suit pronote. But, however, during the earlier transactions, some of the unfilled pronotes were left with the respondent/plaintiff which have been now misused and the present suit is filed. It is also the contention of the appellants/defendants that the respondent/plaintiff has suppressed about the earlier transactions and suit being filed and therefore, those transactions being material in nature, the suit has to be dismissed. It is the further case of the appellants/defendants that if the entire case is taken into consideration, the appellants/defendants were neither present in Coimbatore nor executed the suit pronote at Coimbatore and therefore, the jurisdiction is also not there in the Trial Court to entertain. The respondent/plaintiff filed a reply, wherein, the details of the earlier borrowing transactions were pleaded in detail and an additional written statement was also filed by the appellants/defendants in respect of those earlier transactions in detail and it is the case of the appellants/defendants that the respondent/plaintiff have concocted those documents and promissory notes, taking advantage of the possession, in which, the unfilled promissory notes were in the hands of the respondent/plaintiff. A reply statement was also filed to additional written statement by the respondent/plaintiff.

4. On such pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issue:-

(i) Whether the defendants executed the suit pronote or not?

(ii) Whether the suit pronote was given as security and not for consideration?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled of the suit amount with interest at the rate of 30%?

(iv) What relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to? Additional issue:-

(i) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid, enforceable by law?

5. On the said issues, the parties let in evidence. On the side of the respondent/plaintiff, the respondent/plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and his brother Ramasamy Gounder was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. Thereafter, on behalf of the appellants/defendants, the first appellant/defendant examined himself as D.W.1. No documents were marked on the side of the appellants/defendants. The Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned Counsel on e