The court established that the burden of proof regarding consideration lies with the plaintiff, and the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted through circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Challenging the judgement and decree dated 01.12.2021 made by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur District, in O.S.No.34 of 2019, the defendant is before this Court with the present appeal suit. The suit was decreed against the appellant herein directing him to pay to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of plaint till date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till date of repayment in full and cost of Rs.67,764.50.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal suit will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the original suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 2019 in brief is as follows:

(i) The defendant is known to the plaintiff. Knowing the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed Rs. 9,00,000/- from him on 09.09.2014 by signing an on-demand promissory note committing to repay the debt with interest at 24% per annum.

(ii) Despite the plaintiff's repeated demands, the defendant did not pay interest or repay the principal. Following repeated demands, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.493307 dated 15.10.2016 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.12,50,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Coimbatore to satisfy the principal and interest payable to the plaintiff.

(iii) When the aforementioned cheque was presented for collection on 16.10.2016 through the plaintiff's banker, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Somanur Branch, Coimbatore, it was returned on 17.10.2016 due to the account being closed.

(iv) Knowing that there were insufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque, the defendant fraudulently issued the suit cheque and had it returned in order to avoid paying the principal and interest. Thus, on 22.10.2016, the plaintiff sent a legal notice through his lawyer requiring the defendant to repay the loan amount due within 15 days after the notice, however the notice was returned on 25.10.2016 as intimation delivered. Despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the loan amount and accrued interest. As a result, a suit was filed to retrieve the money.

4. The defendant stiffly resisted the suit inter alia contending that the plaintiff worked as an Electrical Contractor for the defendant's mill, M/s.Sree Lakshmi Spinnerss, in Kombakattupudur, Kadampadi, from 2004 to 2013, and that it is the defendant who was responsible for resolving electrical issues in the mill whenever they arose. Except for the electrical contract, there was no financial transaction between the plaintiff and himself, and there were money transactions of no more than Rs.2000 to Rs.3000/-, depending on the electrical work.

5. It is contended that he never borrowed any money from the plaintiff on 09.09.2014 and executed any promissory note thereof nor any cheque was given towards discharge of any liability. The plaintiff was aware that the defendant's mill was closed, and the defendant did not have the mill on the date the cheque was alleged to have been issued. Yet would have clandestinely stolen the cheque from the defendant's possession or would have obtained the promissory note from someone else through Rajendran to make a false claim, fully aware of the closure of the defendant's mill colluding with the said Rajendran with a dishonest intention to cheat him (defendant). Hence, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial court had framed the following issues for trial:

(1)