Promissory notes are valid when their execution is admitted, and the presumption of consideration can be rebutted by the defendant, but failure to present sufficient evidence maintains the plaintiff's claim.

JUDGMENT :

1. The defendant is before this Court on appeals. The Second Appeals are filed as against the common judgment and decree, dated 26.09.2013, in A.S.Nos.10 and 12 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 12.11.2009, in O.S.Nos.366 and 367 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their ranking before the trial Court. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree, both these appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 30.05.1997 and had executed a promissory note in Ex-A1 agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant is a businessman doing finance business in the name of Karpaga Vinayaga Finance in Kumbakonam and he has availed the loan for the purpose of his business transactions. Since the defendant did not repay the loan amount, even after the demand, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice on 21.09.1998 in Ex-A2 and since the defendant had neither replied nor repaid the loan amount, the plaintiff had come up with the suit for recovery of money.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant had further availed another loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and had executed a promissory note in Ex-A3 for which also, since the amount was not paid, a legal notice in Ex-A4 came to be issued and the same was also not having been replied, the plaintiff had filed one another suit.

5. The defendant resisted the suits by filing a written statement disputing the transactions in Ex-A1 and Ex-A3. It is the case of the defendant that he had no transactions with the plaintiff and, in fact, he had only availed loan from one Pitchai Konar and for the said purpose, he had executed Ex-A1 and Ex-A3 and the loan amount had also been settled to Pitchai Konar. Therefore, the suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration and therefore, denied the claim of the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suits.

6. Both the suits were tried together and during trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and marked Ex-A1 to Ex-A9. On the side of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and examined further witnesses as DW-2 to DW-4 and marked Ex-B1 to Ex-B7. Further, the 'B' register copy in respect of Petition No.460 of 2003, was also marked through witness as Ex-X1.

7. The trial Court, after analysing the oral and documentary evidences, came to the conclusion that the the plaintiff had proved the promissory notes through evidences and also when the execution of the promissory notes in Ex-A1 and Ex-A3 stood admitted, the defendant had not rebutted the presumption and therefore, came to the conclusion that the promissory notes are supported by consideration and decreed the suits. On appeal, the lower appellate Court by a common judgment and decree, dated 26.09.2013, had concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeals. Assailing the concurrent finding of fact, the defendant had preferred the above two Second Appeals.

8. The Second Appeals have not been admitted and this Court, vide order, dated 12.04.2018, had only issued notice of admission to the respondent.

9. Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that though the defendant had executed the promissory notes i