The plaintiff must prove the execution and authenticity of a promissory note to claim recovery under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and failure to provide sufficient evidence can result in the dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the Judgment and Decree dated of the Learned I-Additional District Judge, Salem, dated 25.08.2015 made in O.S.No.202 of 2014.)

 A. The Appeal Suit :

This appeal suit is directed against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned I Additional District Judge at Salem, dated 25/08/2015 in O.S. No. 202 of 2014, thereby dismissing the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,75,000/- with further interests and costs.

B. The Case of Plaintiff :

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant is the wife of one Ganesan. The second defendant is his son. The said Ganesan had on 19/07/2013 borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- for his family''s needs and executed the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at the rate of Rs.1.50, per Rs.100/- per month. The said Ganesan did not repay the principal or interest but passed away on 20/11/2013. After his demise, he was demanding the defendants have to repay the loan but they were evasive and hence legal notice was issued on 18/08/2014 and thereafter, the present suit is filed.

C. The Case of the Defendants :

3. The case of the defendants is that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one. The signature and left thumb impression found in the suit promissory note are not that of Ganesan. The plaintiff does not have any permanent job and is indulging in criminal cases and vexatious litigations by forging and fabricating documents. The attestor and scribe are his close associates. The said Ganesan died of heart attack and there was no necessity for him to borrow such a huge amount. The plaintiff approached the first defendant to sell her husband’s ancestral property at a throw-away price and when she refused, the present suit is filed.

D. The Issue and Trial :

4. On the strength of the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

''''1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 19.07.2013 is true and supported by valid consideration ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 10,75,500/- from the defendants along with interests as prayed for ?

3. What other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled  to ?''

5. On the above said issues, the parties let in evidence. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the scribe-cum-attesting witness was examined as P.W.2 and the Junior Assistant from the Regional Transport Office, Salem West, was examined as P.W.3. Exhibits A-1 to A-4 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. Through P.W.3, Exhibits C-1 & C-2 were also marked. On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as D.W.1. Exhibit B-1 was marked on behalf of the defendants.

6. The Trial Court thereafter, considered the case of the parties and dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the promissory note and that it was supported by consideration. The trial court reasoned that the plaintiff did not even let in evidence as to when and where the suit promissory note was executed, no proof for his financial capacity or lending such a huge amount as cash, and no reason why the said Ganesan was not approached for payment of interest or principal during his lifetime, no particulars as to when the said Ganesan approached for loan and for what purpose, nothing was mentioned in the lawyers notice as to why the same is issued 10 months after the demise of Ganesan and why such huge amount was advanced without security and the attesting witness was also not examined and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved plaintiff is before this Court.

E. The Submissions :

7. Heard Mr. I. Abarar Md. Abdullah, the learned Counsel for the appellant. Mr.A.Esakkiappan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

8. Mr. I. Abrar Mohammed Abdullah, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the