JUDGMENT :

A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

1. This First Appeal, under Section 96 CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019 made in O.S. No.23 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Villupuram @ Kallakurichi, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest came to be decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to by their ranks as they stood before the courts below. The defendant in the suit is the appellant in this first appeal.

3. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant borrowed Rs.12,00,000/- as hand loan on 18.08.2017 and, towards repayment, issued a cheque bearing No.291834 dated 18.08.2017 drawn on ICICI Bank, Kallakurichi Branch, from Account No.088705001582 maintained by him; when the cheque was presented through ICICI Bank, Kallakurichi on 19.08.2017, it was returned unpaid on 21.08.2017 with the endorsement “funds not sufficient”, and alleging that the defendant thereafter sought to evade repayment by alienating his properties and leaving the local limits, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of the said amount with interest and costs.

4. The defendant, in his written statement, denies the plaint averments in entirety, specifically disputing the alleged borrowing of Rs.12,00,000/- on 18.08.2017 and the issuance of the suit cheque, which he characterises as a fabricated instrument unsupported by consideration. He states that he was carrying on business under the name and style of “Sri Balaji Traders” as a wholesale merchant dealing in medicinal tubers, that the business suffered heavy losses, and that in the course of meeting business liabilities to farmers, signed blank cheques were issued to various persons for business purposes. According to him, the business was closed about four years prior to the suit, the bank account referred to in the plaint had remained inoperative for several years, and no accounts were maintained thereafter. He further alleges that the plaintiff, a close acquaintance who frequented the business premises, assisted him during occasions when farmers besieged the premises by filling up cheques for payment, and that several signed blank cheques had been entrusted to the plaintiff for such purpose, one of which has been misused and filled up for Rs.12,00,000/- to institute the present suit. The defendant also pleads that the suit is barred by limitation, material alteration of the cheque, absence of statutory notice, non-joinder of necessary parties, and alleges that the cause of action is not true and thus prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.

5. On the plaintiff’s side, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and examined one Vasanthabala, stated to be an attesting witness to the transaction, as PW2, and marked Ex.A1, the cheque dated 18.08.2017 for Rs.12,00,000/-. On the defendant’s side, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.B1, a copy of a cheque dated 21.09.2015, and Ex.B2, a copy of a promissory note of the same date executed by third parties in favour of the plaintiff in a different transaction.

6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: whether the suit cheque is supported by any consideration; whether the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest to the plaintiff; to what other relief is the plaintiff entitled.

7. The trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, accepted the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and held that the plaintiff had proved advancement of Rs.12,00,000/- as hand loan on 18.08.2017 and issuance of Ex.A1 cheque by the defendant towards discharge of that liability, which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. It noted that while the defendant denied the loan and alleged misuse of a signed blank cheque, he admitted in cross-examination that he had handed over several signed cheques to the plaintiff and that, in relation to Ex.A1, he acted as