The court found the plaintiff failed to establish the execution of the promissory note, concluding the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be invoked.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1.Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated April 21, 2015 passed in O.S. No.10018 of 2010 by 'the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai' ['Trial Court' for convenience], the plaintiff therein has preferred this Appeal Suit under Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ' [' CPC ' for brevity] read with Order IV Rule 14 of the Madras High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1965.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE IN BRIEF:

3. Case of the plaintiff is that on December 5, 2006, the defendant borrowed Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family as well as business needs. The defendant agreed to repay the said amount with 12% interest per annum on demand. By January 2007, the defendant had totally paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards interest as well as principal. But thereafter, the defendant did not pay any amount either towards principal or towards interest in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant on September 27, 2007 demanding repayment. Despite the receipt of notice, the defendant did not pay any amount. Hence, the plaintiff seeks a money decree against the defendant. As on date of the plaint, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- towards principal and a sum of Rs.25,900/- towards interest.

DEFENDANT'S CASE IN BRIEF:

4. The defendant filed a written statement. According to the defendant, he did not borrow Rs.20,00,000/- as alleged in the plaint. The defendant is running an old-age home in the name of S.V. Home for Aged as a registered Charitable Trust. In order to meet some expenses for smooth running of the Trust, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on September 22, 2006 as a hand loan from the plaintiff, who is doing financial business under the name and style of M/s.R.R. & Co. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.75,000/- was deducted as interest at the rate of 25% at the time of borrowal itself, and the defendant received Rs.2,25,000/- as principal from the plaintiff vide Cheque No.158112 dated September 22, 2006 drawn on Union Bank of India, Adayar Branch, Chennai. The said loan amount was repaid by way of 10 Cheques drawn on IDBI Bank Ltd., Chennai. At the time of borrowal, the defendant provided a blank promissory note and blank cheques as security. The defendant settled the entire loan amount as early as on December 02, 2006. Immediately thereafter, the defendant insisted the plaintiff to return the blank promissory note and other documents. The plaintiff evaded the same. Later, the plaintiff misused the blank promissory note and falsely instituted the Suit. Accordingly, the defendant prayed to dismiss the Suit.

TRIAL COURT:

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

'1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim with interest as prayed for?

2. Whether the pronote is proved valid and supported by consideration?

3. Whether the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the purpose of his Trust as pleaded by the defendant is true?

4. Whether the defendant