The necessity of proving consideration and the executant's awareness of the document's contents for establishing a valid contract, and the admissibility of documents as promissory notes under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvandahiya, J. - This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment of reversal in a suit for recovery.

2. The facts of the case in brief are, the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') filed a suit for recovery of 9 lakh from the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant') claiming that the latter had taken a loan of the said amount from her in three installments on 20.02.2009, 21.02.2009 and 15.04.2009 amounting to 3 lakh on each date, with a mutually settled interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month. The defendant agreed to return the amount with interest whenever called upon to do so. He scribed three writings on his letterhead, acknowledged the receipt of payments on the dates mentioned above and signed the same. The transaction was witnessed by Vikram Lamba and other family members of the plaintiff, who happened to be present in the house at that time. The defendant had earlier also taken a loan from the plaintiff and her family members while he was constructing a house. In view of the cordial relations and good conduct of the defendant, the loan in question was extended to him.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant denying that he ever took a loan of 9 lakh from the plaintiff in three installments. Vikram Lamba was stated to be close to the plaintiff's husband and her sons, and was, therefore, named as a witness with ulterior motive. Defendant had never taken loan from the plaintiff earlier, as alleged by her. He had taken loan from plaintiff's husband Ram Lal for a sum of 11 lakh ('6 lakh on 20.02.2009 and 5 lakh on 21.02.2009), but no writing was executed for the same by the defendant. The plaintiff's husband and her sons obtained four writings/tehreer on defendant's letterhead of 3 lakh each in the name of the plaintiff, as security of the loan taken by the defendant from plaintiff's husband Ram Lal in April, 2009. Later, the defendant repaid 16,80,000/- on different dates as detailed in the plaint. As such, the aforesaid principal amount of 11 lakh stood returned in June, 2009 and excess amount as well as the writings/tehreer remained with the plaintiff's husband, who along with plaintiff's sons Amit, Gopal and Sachin Goyal started blackmailing and misbehaving with the defendant and filed the suit in question. The defendant in his statement recorded on 02.06.2010 admitted his signatures on the alleged writings, but denied taking any loan from the plaintiff as well as execution of the writings in question.

4. On these pleadings, following issues were settled between the parties:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of 9,00,000/- along with interest and cost? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this present suit? OPD

4. Relief.

5. In evidence, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1, Sachin Goyal (her son) as PW2 and Vikram Lamba (witness to the writings) as PW3. Defendant, on the other hand, examined himself as DW2 and Rakesh as DW1.

6. While returning finding on Issue No.1, the trial Court held that writings in question dated 20.02.2009, 21.02.2009 and 15.04.2009 (Ex.PW1/1, PW1/2 and PW1/3 respectively) establish that the same were executed by the defendant for an amount of 3 lakh each along with interest at the rate of 2% per month in favour of the plaintiff on his letter head. The same bore his signatures with acknowledgement of having received the payments. These facts stand established by way of deposition of the witness Vikram Lamba, PW3. The defendant's plea of having taken loan of 11 lakh from the plaintiff's husband and the latter having obtained four writings of the former on the letterhead as security of the loan, could not be established on record. No witness was examined by the defendant to prove this fact, nor any fraud could be established on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, it was held that the writings in question dated 20.02.2009, 21.02.2009 a