The presumption of validity under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires defendants to provide evidence to rebut the execution of a promissory note once established by the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

Appeal Suit has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.39 of 2012, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, dated11.12.2020.

2. The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants herein.

3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred as per their original rank in the suit.

4. The suit in O.S.No.39 of 2012 is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,72,667/- with subsequent interest on the foot of a promissory note executed by the first defendant and her husband, namerly, Kanagaraj in favour of the plaintiff.

5. Case of the plaintiff in brief as follows:-

(i) The first defendant is the wife of the deceased Thiru.Kanagaraj.The defendants 2 & 4 are the daughters of the first defendant and the third defendant is the son of the first defendant. The first defendant and her deceased husband Thiru.Kanagaraj had been running an Industry to manufacture wooden inner boxes. As they were not interested to run the said industry, both the first defendant and her husband Kanagaraj leased out the same to the plaintiff for three years from 07.07.2007 to 06.07.2010. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards an advance and paid monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. The said lease agreement was reduced into writing in non-judicial stamp paper. After completion of the said lease period, the plaintiff handed over the said industry to the first defendant and her husband and got back the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.

(ii) On 10.10.2010 the first defendant and her husband jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff at her residence for their urgent family expenses and for business development on a promise to repay the same on demand and executed a demand promissory note jointly. The plaintiff demanded repayment together with agreed interest in the month of January 2012 and they were agreed to repay the same in the month of March 2012. In the meantime, the husband of the first defendant died on 18.02.2012 and hence, the plaintiff did not insist for repayment in the month of March and demanded the repayment in the month of April 2012, but the first defendant evasively answered. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 11.04.2012. The first and third defendants acknowledged the receipt of the notice on 12.04.2012. The defendants neither repaid the amount nor replied the notice. Hence, the suit is laid.

6. Case of the defendants in brief as follows:-

(i) The third defendant filed a written statement. The written statement filed by the third defendant is adopted by the defendants1,2 & 4.

(ii) The defendants denied the execution of the promissory note.The defendants admitted the fact that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards an advance and paid a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- as per the lease agreement entered between them. In order to grab the industry of manufacturing wooden inner boxes and the properties, the alleged promissory dated 10.10.2010 has been created by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no capacity to give such huge amount and no necessity arises for the first defendant and her husband to borrow such a huge amount from the plaintiff. Without knowing the correct date of death of the first defendant's husband, in the alleged pronote, the date of death has been corrected by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the suit amount with interest as prayed for?

2. To what relief and costs, the plaintiff is entitled?

8. On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and her husband was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as D.W.1, second defendant was examined as D.W.2, third defendant was examined as D.W.4 and one Kalidoss was exam