Execution of Promissory Notes is valid unless substantial evidence to the contrary dislodges the legal presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT :

(N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, decreeing the suit on the basis of Promissory Notes, for recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of suit till the decree and thereafter, 6% interest till the date of realization, the present appeal has been filed.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 03.02.2018 and executed a Promissory Note agreeing to pay the amount with monthly interest at Rs.1/- per Rs.100/- and also borrowed another Rs.7,00,000/- on 08.03.2018 agreeing to pay the monthly interest at Rs.1/- per Rs.100/- and executed another Promissory Note. Despite repeated demand, the amount has not been paid and hence, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 16.10.2019, inspite of which, the defendant has not shown any interest to pay the amount.

4. The defendant has filed a written statement, contending that he never borrowed any amount or executed Pronotes. According to him, 10 years back, he was a subscriber to the Chit run by the plaintiff and he joined Rs.5,00,000/- chit and he was a successful bidder in 15^th chit and at that time, the plaintiff has obtained his signatures in two pronotes and two blank papers. After the transaction is over, when the defendant requested the return of documents, the plaintiff assured that the documents have been misplaced and as soon as documents are traced, the same would be handed to the defendant. It is further contended that the defendant owned a property, which is situated adjacent to the property of the plaintiff and the defendant attempted to sell the property for his personal need, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to sell the property to him for a lesser price. Since the defendant refused to sell the property to the plaintiff for the lower price, the Pronotes have been misused by the plaintiff and a suit has been filed. According to the defendant, the Pronotes have been fabricated. In the additional written statement, similar stand has been taken by the defendant.

5. The Trial Court, based on the above pleadings framed the following issues:

i) Whether the Pronotes dated 03.02.2018 and 08.03.2018 are true and valid?

ii) Whether the plaintiff has been running a chit transaction?

iii) Whether the defendant was a member of the chit?

iv) Whether the plaintiff is liable for return of the chit amount to the defendant?

v) Whether the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff?

vi) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

6. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 were marked.

7. The Trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, decreed the suit. Challenging the same, the instant appeal has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly submit that the execution of Promissory Notes under Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 has not been proved in the manner known to law and those Pronotes are forged one. The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective. In the evidence, P.W.2, one of the attesting witnesses deposed that the Pronotes were executed in the garden of P.W.3, whereas P.W.3 stated in his evidence that Pronotes were executed in his house. These contradictions clearly show that the Pronotes are not true and valid. Further, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 himself admitted that he was running a Chit Company and the same probabilizes the defendant's