Compliance with procedural standards, especially regarding valid demand notices, is essential in legal proceedings concerning negotiable instruments to ensure fairness and justice.

JUDGMENT :

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

This Second Appeal was filed aggrieved over the Judgement and Decree dated 21.10.2021 passed in A.S.No.47 of 2019 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Madurai.

2. For the purpose of easy reference, the appellants herein may be referred hereinafter as the defendants and the respondents herein may be referred hereinafter as the plaintiffs.

3. Initially, the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.190 of 2012 before the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as follows.

3.1. The plaintiffs are husband and wife. The 1st defendant is the brother of the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. On 02.08.2010, the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the plaintiffs as a loan for discharging previous debt, development of their business and to meet urgent expenses. The defendants agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and they have also executed a demand promissory note on the same date. The plaintiffs demanded the defendants to repay the loan amount with interest. The defendants have not taken any sincere effort to repay the same. Hence, the plaintiffs sent a lawyer notice to the defendants on 15.06.2011 and 31.07.2011. The defendants sent their reply notices to the plaintiffs on 27.06.2011 and 12.08.2011 respectively. Since the defendants failed to repay the loan amount, the present suit.

4. The defendants filed their written statement before the Trial Court and the brief averments in the written statement are as follows.

4.1. The relationship between the parties are admitted. The defendants never borrowed the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 02.08.2010 from the plaintiffs. On 30.04.2007, the 1st defendant obtained Rs.3,00,000/- as mortgage loan from the 1st plaintiff and in this regard the 1st defendant executed a mortgage deed in respect of his property. With regard to the same, the 1st plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.185 of 2012. The 1st defendant had paid the interest for Rs.3,00,000/- and also repaid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- - in the principal amount. On 01.05.2011, the plaintiffs, the mother of the 2nd plaintiff and two others, namely, Regina and Deisy trespassed into the defendants’ house and assaulted them in filthy language. The defendants have also lodged a criminal complaint in this regard. Keeping the same in the mind, the plaintiffs forged the signatures of the defendants in the suit promissory note and filed the suit. The suit is barred by limitation.

5. The plaintiffs have also filed reply statement denying the fact that the first plaintiff and his sister trespassed into the defendant’s house and threatened the defendants.

6. Before the Trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. However, on behalf of the defendants, no one was examined and no documentary evidence was marked. Court Witness Ex.C1 was marked.

7. On completion of pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues.

"(i) Whether the suit promissory note was bogusly created?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of recovery of suit money from the defendants?

(iii) What are the other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to?"

8. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the promissory note is not bogusly created and decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved over the said Judgement and Decree, the defendants filed an appeal