A promissory bond must be substantiated with credible evidence; otherwise, it can be deemed fictitious.

1. This first appeal under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure ,1908 is directed against the judgment dated 18.02.2020 and decree dated 02.03.2020, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Belonia, South Tripura in Money Suit No.01/2017.

2. It is the case of the original plaintiff that during life time of her husband, namely, Sankar Prasad Sarkar, the defendant had a good relation with the plaintiff and their family and used to take bricks from the Brick Industries being owned by plaintiff's daughter along with her partners. Having the advantage of that relation, the defendant approached to the husband of plaintiff to give Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh) only in order to run his business and also assured to return the same within two years with 25% profit from his business. At that time, the defendant was very distressed and the plaintiff and her husband become emotional and agreed to give loan to him. On being agreed by the plaintiff and her husband, the defendant executed a Promisory Bond on a Non - Judicial stamp paper stating that the husband of the plaintiff gave Rs.15,00,000/- on 06.06.2014 in the house of the plaintiff in presence of the plaintiff and one Smt. Shampa Datta who were cited as witnesses of the Promisory Bond.

3. It is asserted in the plaint that after one year of the execution of Promisory Bond, when the husband of the plaintiff fell ill, the plaintiff requested the defendant to return back the said amount for spending the same in connection with treatment of her husband. The defendant, then, refused to pay the said amount. Ultimately, on 10.04.2016 her husband died. The plaintiff thereafter on 06.06.2016, served an Advocate Notice to the defendant but that was turned down by the defendant.

4. The plaintiff being one of the legal heirs of deceased Sankar Prasad Sarkar filed a Money Suit being numbered as MS 01 of 2017 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Belonia, South Tripura for realization or recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- from the defendant Sankar Ghosh which was taken by him as a loan from the deceased husband of the plaintiff on 06.06.2014 after executing a Promissory Bond.

5. By way of filing written statement by the defendant, it is contended that he had not taken any loan for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on 06.06.2014 from the husband of the petitioner after executing any Promissory Bond. It is contended that the said Promissory Bond is manufactured one and it is false, fabricated and concocted. It is the plea of the defendant that though he had received an Advocate Notice, but, he felt redundant to reply since he did never take any loan from the plaintiff. The defendant's further plea is that since he dealt with the business of civil construction, he had a good relation with the husband of the petitioner who was engaged in brick kiln. In the year 2015 when the husband of the petitioner fell ill, the defendant took him out of the State for his better treatment and the entire expenditure of the treatment of the husband of the petitioner was borne by the defendant. It is the assertion of the defendant that just to grab money from him, the plaintiff had instituted the money suit.

6. After having gone through the plaint and written statement of the parties to the suit, the learned trial court had framed the following issues for decision:
(i) Whether the present case is maintainable in its form and nature?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has got a proper cause of action?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree declaring that the defendant owes an amount of
Rs. 15,00,000 / with a direction to re - pay the same ?
(iv) Whether the plainti