JUDGEMENT

(1) The Appellant in this second appeal is the plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.108/2010 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Villupuram. The appellant, as plaintiff, filed the suit for a recovery of sum of Rs.3,04,700/- with interest on the principal amount of Rs.2,40,000/- based on the two promissory notes executed by the defendant on 12.06.2007 (for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-) and on

13.06.2007( for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-)

(2) It is stated by the appellant that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on 12.06.2007 for his family expenses and again a further sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on 13.06.2007 for the defendants expenses towards agricultural operations with 12% interest. The appellant further states that the defendant refused to settle the amount despite repeated requests. Thus the suit came to be filed by the appellant.

(3) The suit was contested by the respondent /defendant mainly on the ground that the plaintiff used to get promissory notes for double the amounts and with regard to suit promissory note, it was contented that the plaintiff obtained two blank pronotes mentioning a sum of Rs.60,000/- under the pretext that some more amount is also due by calculating interest exorbitantly. It is the specific case of the defendant that the suit promissory notes have been materially altered by deleting the sum of Rs. 60,000/- and by inserting the figure 1,20,000/-.

(4) The trial Court after framing necessary issues and after considering the fact that the defendant had admitted his signature in the suit promissory notes and also relying upon Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, held that the plaintiff has proved the execution of promissory notes by the defendant and therefore, he is entitled to get the decree as prayed for.

(5) Even though a specific issue was framed as to whether there is a material alteration in the suit promissory note as alleged in the written statement, the trial Court held that there is no material alteration in the pronote. Since the trial Court held that execution of pronote is proved passing of consideration should be presumed by invoking Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by the learned II Additional Sub Ordinate Judge, Villupuram in O.S.No.108/2010 on 05.11.2013 the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.45/2013 before the Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

(6) The Lower Appellate Court after framing points for consideration and independently considering the whole case, set aside the Judgement and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.108/2010 on 05.11.2013 and allowed the appeal by accepting the case of the defendant. The Lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff had materially altered the pronote by correcting the figures and therefore, he is not entitled to the suit claim. As a result the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, in A.S.No.45/2013 dated 30.04.2014, reversing the judgement and decree of the trial Court in OS.No.108/2010, the above second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff.

(7) In the memorandum of grounds, the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law:

“ (1) Whether the first appellate court is right in dismissing the suit for recovery of money without considering the legal presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when it was considered by the trial Court?

(2) Whether the first appellate court is right to shift the burden of proof of payment of money under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2 pronotes when the defendant/respondent admitted the execution of the said promotes and did not made nay reply to the appellant's notice?

(3) Whether the first appellate court is right in dismissing the suit for recovery of money disbelieving the payment of consideration under Ex.A1 andEx.A2 pronotes without an material evidence or documents?

(4) Whether the first appellate court is right in