The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of consideration for the cheque, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the legal presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

Challenging the decree and judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit filed for recovery of a sum of 15,79,500/- along with interest at the rate of 12% on the principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with costs, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

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

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is none other than the son-law of the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant, for her medical expenses, borrowed a sum of Rs.15 lakhs on 23.01.2017 and handed over Ex.A.1 post dated cheque dated 23.03.2017. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned as account closed. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 23.06.2017 which has not been replied. As the first defendant died, the defendants 2 to 5 have been impleaded as her legal representatives.

4. The first defendant has filed a written statement before her death. According to her, the plaintiff being her son-in-law was helping her to receive the interest amount from the bank. For that purpose, she used to give blank cheques. One such blank cheque has been misused. The first defendant was in the fourth stage of cancer. The plaintiff has retained the property documents and gold ornaments and several blank cheques. When other daughters visited the first defendant and questioned the plaintiff, there arose dispute between them. The plaintiff has also filed a suit in O.S.No.33 of 2017 as if the first defendant has executed an agreement for sale in respect of an immovable property. Hence, disputed the very borrowal.

5. The defendants 2, 3, 4 had also filed a written statement to the effect that when they attended their mother, they came to know that gold ornaments, blank cheques and property documents have been taken away by the plaintiff. When they questioned, the document has been fabricated and the suit has been filed. Their mother has also executed a Will in their favour on 18.09.2017.

6. The fifth defendant supported the case of the plaintiff and she is none other than the wife of the plaintiff. Her pleadings indicate that she was not happy with the Will executed by her mother.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the suit?

2. Whether the suit cheque is true, supported by consideration and legally enforceable?

3. Whether the suit cheque is forged?

4. Whether the defendants are entitled to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff?

8. On the plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Thavittupalayam Branch Manager of Axis Bank has been examined as P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 have been marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 have been examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.62 have been marked.

9. The trial Court appreciating entire oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.

10. The main contention of the appellant is that the signature in the cheque has not been disputed by the first defendant. It is contention of the defendants that the cheque was given only for the purpose of withdrawal of the interest amount from the bank. Further, the reply notice said to have been given by the first defendant has not been received and no acknowledgment has been filed. Therefore, Ex.B.56 cannot be relied upon. Hence, it is his contention that once a cheque has been issued, there is legal presumption attached to it, which has not not been dislodged by the defendants.

11. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that there is absolutely no evidence as to why such a huge consideration of Rs.15 lakhs has been given to their mother, who is suffering from cancer. Further on the date of alleged payment of Rs.15 lakhs, yet another agreement allegedly came to be executed in respect of which the suit in O.S.No.70 of 20