Court deemed the execution of the pronote unproven due to insufficient evidence by the plaintiff and reliance on expert evidence favoring the defendant.

JUDGMENT :

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

1. This first appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024 made in O.S.No.154 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Court, Dindigul. It is a suit for recovery of money.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

The defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to meet his urgent expenses on 26.01.2015. He executed Ex.A1-pro note in the presence of the witnesses. He had agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Since he did not pay either the principal amount or the interest in spite of the repeated demands, the suit for recovery came to be filed.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the whole transaction. He contended that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. He also denied the execution of the suit pro note. The defendant would further state that he had no necessity or need to borrow from the plaintiff. Based on the rival pleadings, the court below framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the pronote dated 26.01.2015 was executed by the defendant?

2. Whether the said pronote was supported by passing of consideration?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery the suit amount with interest as prayed for ?

4. To what other reliefs are the parties entitled?”

4. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. The attestors of the pronote were also examined. Thus, totally four witnesses were examined on the plaintiff's side. Pronote was marked as Ex.A1. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1. The handwriting expert was examined as D.W.2 and her opinion was marked as Ex.C1. After considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the execution of the pro-note was proved and that it was also supported by consideration. The suit was decreed as prayed for. The defendant was directed to repay the said amount of Rs.52,72,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.40,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree. Interest was to run at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount from the date of decree till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, this appeal came to be filed.

5. When the case was listed in March, we referred the matter for mediation. But mediation failed. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 24.04.2025 and 28.04.2025 and the case was argued on either side. Even though the parties could not arrive at any consensus to resolve the issue, we felt that even though the suit transaction may not be true, there was some other transaction out of which there was some account of liability on the part of the appellant. We therefore called upon the appellant to make the statement before this Court as to whether he would still make any payment to the plaintiff even if this first appeal is allowed in his favour. Pursuant to the nudging given by this Court, the appellant filed an affidavit. He stated that there was a dealing with one person at Usilampatti. The plaintiff is said to have paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the said person and settle the appellant's liability. Since difference of opinion arose between the appellant and the plaintiff as to how much he should pay, the present suit came to be instituted.

6. Even while reiterating that the suit pro-note is a fabricated document, the appellant undertook to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards full and final settlement of all claims which the plaintiffs may have against him. We indicated to the learned counsel for the plaintiff that even at this stage if compromise is arrive