The execution of a promissory note is presumed valid under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden to the defendant to disprove it, which was not achieved in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenge has been made to the decree and judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery of a sum of 10,80,900/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization of the principal amount of Rs.9,00,000/- in the present appeal.

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

3. The brief facts of the plaintiff case is as follows :

The defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.9 lakhs on 25.01.2016 from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed a promissory note on the same day agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 1.50 ps per month per hundred. Despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the amount. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 18.10.2016 calling upon the defendant to repay the amount along with agreed rate of interest. The defendant sent a reply on 05.11.2016 with false allegations. Hence, the suit.

4. The defence taken by the defendant in the written statement is that copies of the documents have not been served to properly. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Further, it is his contention that he has not borrowed any amount on 25.01.2016 and that on the date of alleged borrowal and promissory note, he was in Krishnagiri and he was working in Global Lab company and he had also visited several colleges in his official capacity on that date. According to him, the promissory note has been fabricated fraudulently and he has not executed the same. Hence, opposed the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court :

1. Whether it is true that the defendant has borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- [Nine lakhs] on 25.01.2016 from the plaintiff and has executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount from the defendant as claimed in the plaint?

3. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?

6. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and E.A.1 to A5 have been marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.3 have been examined. No documents have been marked on his side.

7. The trial Court, considering the evidence on either side, both oral and documentary, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the promissory note has not been proved in the manner known to law. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 itself clearly show that there are differences between the signature on the stamp and other signature. It is his further contention that the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3 also shows that the defendant was not in the place where the promissory note was allegedly executed. In the reply notice Ex.A.5, it has been clearly pleaded that the promissory note has been fabricated. When the execution of the promissory note has not been established, the trial Court ought not to have decreed the suit. According to him, the promissory note has been fabricated. The difference in the signature itself prove the above said facts. The trial Court has not considered all these facts. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following judgments :

Salem Constructions, a registered Partnership Firm and others Vs. K.Santhim reported in 2020 [5] CTC 298

Robinson Vs. Ramachandran reported in 2014 [6] CTC 195

9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the defence set up by the defendant in the pleading has not been established. Whereas, the execution of the promissory note has been clearly established. The plea of alibi has not been proved by the defendant. Further, in Ex.A.3 reply notice, the defendant has admitted his signature in the promissory note. Wherein it is pleaded that the promissory note has been given to one Subramaniam, who