JUDGMENT :

The present Appeal Suit has been instituted against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2016 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in OS No.5 of 2012.

2. The appellants are the defendants 2 and 3, the respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the respondents 3 and 4 are defendants 4 and 5 in the suit.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs 1 and 2 instituted the suit for recovery of money based on the Promissory Note.

4. The plaint averments state that the first defendant is the wife of late Thiru T.Thirunavukkarasu and the fourth defendant is his mother, second and third defendants are the sons of the deceased T.Thirunavukkarasu.

5. Late T.Thirunavukkarasu was running the business of M/s.Kavitha Screen Printers at Tirupur. He borrowed a sum of Rs.15 lakhs for the business and family necessities, agreed to repay the said sum with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, on demand and executed a Promissory Note to that effect on 25.08.2011.

6. On 26.08.2011, he had given letter acknowledging the borrowal and execution of Promissory Note and handed over the original Title Deeds of his properties bearing Nos.2428 of 2009 dated 20.03.2009 and 13554 of 2009 dated 04.12.2009 and original policy bond bearing No.765898138 and 765889537 as securities.

7. Late T.Thirunavukkarasu paid interest for two months and thereafter died on 29.01.2012, leaving behind him defendants 1 to 4 as legal heirs. Thus the plaintiffs demanded with the defendants to settle the amount and they failed to discharge the amount, which resulted in institution of a suit for recovery of money.

8. Defendants 2 and 3 filed written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. Defendants 2 and 3 denied the execution of Promissory Note dated 25.08.2011 by late T. Thirunavukkarasu. The suit Promissory Note is a forged one. Defendants 2 and 3 denied that their father handed over the original Sale Deeds and LIC Policy to the plaintiffs along with the suit Promissory Note. Thus the suit is to be dismissed.

9. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the plaintiffs entitle for a decree directing the defendant to pay for Rs.15,73,972/- with subsequent interest Rs.15,00,000/- @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation as prayed for ?

(2) To what relief the parties entitled for ?

10. On the side of the plaintiffs, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked as documents. On the side of the defendants, DW-1 was examined and no document was marked.

11. Regarding issue No.1, the Trial Court has gone into the validity of the Promissory Note, Ex.A-1 document. The plaint averments reveal that late T. Thirunavukkarasu borrowed a sum of Rs.15 lakhs for his business purpose and family necessities and agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

12. In lieu of the loan amount, the deceased T.Thirunavukkarasu handed over the Sale Deeds and the LIC bond as securities to the plaintiffs. The said documents were marked as Exs.A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 respectively.

13. The initial burden lies upon the plaintiffs to prove execution of the suit Promissory Note under Ex.A-1. The signature of the deceased T.Thirunavukkarasu in the Promissory Note was proved before the Trial Court and in this regard, the Trial Court relied on the deposition of PW-2, who in turn stood as a Guarantor.

14. Relying on the deposition of PW-2 and in his cross-examination, the Trial Court drew an inference that the evidence of PW-2 is reliable and accordingly, held that the plaintiffs duly proved the execution of the Promissory Note. Once the execution of Promissory Note is proved and the signature of the parties in the Promissory Note has been established, then the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be applied. No doubt, the presumption is rebuttable one, either by means of circumstantial evidence or by establishing preponderance of probabilitie