JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 11.04.2018 passed in A.S. No.12 of 2017 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2017 passed in O.S. No.82 of 2015 on the file of the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam.)

1. The defendant in a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note is the appellant.

2. The parties are described as per the litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,68,000 /-, being the principal sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, together with interest as on date of filing of suit. The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 20.09.2014 and executed a suit promissory note, evidencing the borrowing and undertaking to pay the same on demand with interest. As the defendant did not come forward to repay the said money, the plaintiff issued a lawyer’s notice on 17.03.2015. On receipt of the said notice, the defendant sent a reply on 11.04.2015, denying liability. The suit was, therefore, filed for recovery of the dues.

4. The defendant filed a written statement stating that he neither borrowed any money in the year 2014 nor executed a promissory note as alleged in the plaint. It is also contended that in 2010, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was borrowed by his father to repay loans taken for celebrating the marriage of his sister and subsequently, the said loan was also discharged. At that time, the defendant’s father was suffering from paralysis and therefore, the plaintiff insisted upon the defendant to sign an unfilled promissory note, which has been misused by the plaintiff, to project the suit claim. According to the defendant, apart from the borrowing made in 2010, no money was borrowed either by the defendant or by his father and consequently the suit was liable to be rejected.

5. The trial Court accepted the version projected by the defendant and dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the money claimed as it was relating to a 2010 transaction and that suit promissory note was given as a security for the borrowing made by the defendant’s father.

6. However, on Appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit.

7. Aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the First Appellate Court, the defendant has come up by way of the present Second Appeal.

8. The above Second Appeal was admitted on 22.11.2018 on the following substantial questions of law, namely:

"(1) Whether the First Appellate Court is correct in setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court when the appellant herein satisfactorily rebutted the presumption under Section 118 of the Act that the Promissory Note Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration and the same has been executed in the circumstances stated by the defendant in the written statement?

(2) Whether the First Appellate Court's finding that the appellant herein did not prove the passing of consideration under Section 43 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is justified when this appellant has categorically, cogently proved the non-existence of consideration by discharging his onus of proof by showing direct and probable evidence rebutting the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Act as correctly held by the Trial Court?"

9. On hearing the learned counsel of appellant and respondent, I proceed to frame an additional substantial question of law, namely:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to make a claim when he has admittedly stated that he was in a money lending business and does not possess the requisite license mandated under Section 3 of The Tamil Nadu Money-Lenders Act, 1957.”

10. I have heard Mr.S. Nagarajan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Giritharan, learned counsel for the respondent.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant would take me through the oral evidence adduced by the parties, especially the evid