The presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises when execution of a promissory note is established, placing the burden on the defendant to disprove the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 01.11.2023 passed in O.S.No.12 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.12 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli. The respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money based on the promissory note against the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant contested the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts are as below:

(a) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 02.01.2018 and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 1% p.m. After borrowal of loan, the defendant has not repaid any amount either towards principal or interest, in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

(b) The case of the defendant is that the defendant asked loan of Rs.2,50,000/- each from the plaintiff for his colleagues one Selvi and Venkatesan for their urgent medical and family expenses. Accordingly, the plaintiff has advanced loans to them. At that time, the plaintiff obtained signature of defendant in an unfilled Rs.50/- stamp paper and white papers. After two months, the husband of Selvi died and the aforesaid Venkatesan had availed loans upto Rs.60 lakhs from various persons. However, the defendant has repaid Rs.9,00,000/- till November, 2017 towards loan and demanded return of signed Rs.50/- stamp paper and white papers and so, the defendant lodged a police complaint. But, the plaintiff has not returned them. By making use of them, the plaintiff has falsely filed this vexatious suit.

5. The trial Court framed the following issues upon the pleadings of both parties:

''(1) Whether the defendant had borrowed a loan of Rs.9,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 02.01.2018 and executed the suit promissory note?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim?

(3) To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?''

6. The dispute went to trial and during trial, the plaintiff examined nd himself as P.W.1 and also examined the 2 attesting witness as P.W.2 and marked Ex.A.1. The defendant entered into the witness box and examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined D.W.2, and marked Ex.B.1.

7. On appreciation of evidence and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the trial Court has chosen to decree the suit holding that the plaintiff has established his case.

8. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is under challenge in this Appeal Suit.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has argued that the defendant is working in railway, he never obtained any loan from the plaintiff and never executed any pronote. He approached the plaintiff asking loan for his colleagues Selvi and Venkatesan, who obtained loan of Rs.2,50,000/- each from the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained the signature of the defendant in stamp paper and white papers. The defendant repaid Rs.9,00,000/- towards the loan obtained by the said Selvi and Venkatesan and demanded the return of signed stamp paper and white papers. Since the plaintiff has not returned, the defendant lodged a police complaint before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Trichy where the p