The legal representatives of a deceased creditor can continue a recovery suit without a succession certificate, provided they establish the promissory note's execution and consideration.

JUDGMENT :

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The defendant in O.S.No.20 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Court, Karur, is the appellant herein.

2. O.S.No.20 of 2017 was originally filed by S.Rathna Kumar against the appellant herein, K.N.Subramani @ K. N. Subramanian, seeking a judgment and decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.26,25,280/- together with subsequent interest and costs.

O.S.No.20 of 2017 [Additional District Court at Karur]:-

3. In the plaint, it had been stated that on 02.09.2010, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- from the plaintiff for business purposes and agreed to repay the same with interest at Rs.1.80 per month per Rs.100/-. The defendant had also executed a promissory note after receiving the entire consideration. It had been further stated that, in spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay any amount either towards the principal or towards the interest. The plaintiff had then issued a notice dated 10.07.2013, calling upon the defendant to pay the entire amount due under the promissory note. It had been further stated that the defendant did not reply to the said notice. It was under those circumstances that the suit had been filed for the relief stated above.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died intestate on 28.08.2016. Thereafter, his legal heirs were impleaded as plaintiffs 2 to 5.

5. In the written statement, the defendant stated that he did not know the plaintiff and that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff either on 02.09.2010 or on any other date. He specifically denied having borrowed a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- or having agreed to repay the same with interest as stated in the plaint. He also denied execution of the promissory note.

6. He also denied that there were any demands made by the plaintiff for repayment of the amount. He further stated that he had never seen the plaintiff before. He stated that the plaintiff was a native of Paramathi Velur and might be a close relative of one Devaraj @ Devannan, who happened to be the defendant's business partner in a real estate venture and who had subsequently turned against the defendant. It had been stated that the defendant had no necessity to borrow any money from the plaintiff. He denied receipt of the suit notice. He also stated that the promissory note was forged and concocted with the assistance of the said Devaraj @ Devannan. He further stated that there was no consideration that passed under the promissory note. He claimed that the suit was liable to be dismissed. He also reserved his right to file an additional written statement but did not file any such statement.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

''(i) Whether the suit promissory note is a forged one?

(ii) Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for?

(iv) To what other reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?''

8. During the trial, two witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiffs, namely, the third plaintiff, Gowri, as P.W.1, and Jayaprakash as P.W.2. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and further examined Anbalagan as D.W.2, Devaraj @ Devannan as D.W.3, and Bakyaraj as D.W.4.

8.1. The plaintiffs marked the original promissory note dated 02.09.2010 as Ex.A1 and a copy of the notice dated 10.07.2013 as Ex.A2. The defendant marked a copy of the driving licence of D.W.2 Anbalagan as Ex.B1 and a General Power of Attorney executed by S.Devaraj dated 09.02.2007 as Ex.B2.

9. On examination of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge found that there were contradictions between the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3 and also took note of the admission of the defendant that he had not issued any reply to the suit notice, since, according to him, the promissory note was a forged one. The learned Trial Judge was of