JUDGMENT :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. to set aside the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 38 of 2020 dated 31.03.2021 on the file of the I Additional District Judge Tuticorin as reversing by the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 122 of 2015 dated 05.02.2020 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin.

1. The defendant is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 122 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin for the relief of recovery of money of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- based upon a post dated cheque executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiff had filed A.S. No. 38 of 2020 before the I Additional District Judge, Tuticorin. The learned District Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and granted a decree as prayed for. As against the same, the defendant has filed the above second appeal.

3. The plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff and the defendant are friends. The defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.06.2014 for urgent family needs and he agreed to repay the said amount within a period of one month. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has issued a post dated cheque drawn on HDFC Bank, Tuticorin Branch in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the defendant presented the said cheque for collection in Vijaya Bank, Tuticorin Branch on 20.07.2014 and the same was returned on 21.07.2014 with a memo stating that the defendant's bank account has been closed by him. The plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendant under Exhibit A3 and Exhibit A4 is an acknowledgement for the same. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of money.

4. The defendant has filed a written statement disputing the borrowal of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant has also disputed that he had issued a cheque dated 19.07.2014 drawn from HDFC Bank, Tuticorin Branch to the plaintiff. According to the defendant, there is no relationship whatsoever with the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant are not in talking terms due to some election dispute. The defendant had further contended that he does not have any account in HDFC Bank and the cheque that is relied upon by the plaintiff also does not belong to the defendant. The defendant also disputed that the signature found in the said cheque is not his signature. The defendant had further contended that he has never borrowed any sum much less Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and hence, he is not liable for the said claim.

5. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a finding that the cheque under Exhibit A1 is said to have been issued by authorised signatory on behalf of Gowri Enterprises in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court found that there is no document whatsoever to establish that the defendant is the owner of Gowri Enterprises or he is in any way connected with Gowri Enterprises. The trial Court further found that when the defendant has disputed his signature in the cheque, the plaintiff has not initiated any action to send the cheque for expert opinion. The trial Court further found that there is also no evidence to the effect that at least the defendant is one of the partners in the said Gowri Enterprises. The trial Court also relied upon the deposition of PW2. PW2 is the Manager of Vijaya Bank to whom the cheque was presented by the plaintiff. However, the Manager of HDFC Bank namely the drawer Bank has not been examined. The trial Court further found that the plaintiff has not established the fact that the cheque belongs to the defendant. Based upon the said finding, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

6. The First Appellate Court found that Gowri Enterprises was managed by the defendant's sister's husband by name one Anthonisamy. In such circumstances, there was a