A party cannot recover under a promissory note that contradicts the registered sale deed; courts do not aid in illegal transactions.

JUDGMENT

A.The Appeal :

This appeal suit is filed by the appellants aggrieved by the Judgement and Decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore dated 20.07.2015 in and by which O.S.No.68 of 2014 filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,43,200/- together with future interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.11,00,000/- was dismissed by the Trial Court.

B.Brief Facts:

2.The case of the Plaintiff is that the defendant was the original owner of the property at Door No.80, Ida Scudder Road, Vellore. By a registered sale deed dated 02.12.2011, through her Power of Attorney agent, the defendant sold the said property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-. However, in the year 2013, the defendant wanted to repurchase the same from the plaintiff. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.20,00,000/-. It was agreed between the parties that even after the sale, the plaintiff shall continue as a tenant and run the tea stall business. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- was quantified as advance for the non-residential shop premises and the same was deducted out of the sale consideration. This apart, the defendant had paid cash of Rs.3,00,000/- on the date of registration of the sale deed on 12.04.2013. For the balance Rs.11,00,000/- sale consideration, the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said sum of Rs.11,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Even though the plaintiff as a tenant is paying the monthly rent, the defendant did not pay the amount due under the promissory note inspite of repeated demands and hence the suit.

3.Even though the defendant entered appearance, he thereafter did not file the written statement, and thus was set ex-parte.

4.The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. The Trial Court, thereafter, considered the matter for passing ex-parte decree, and by a judgment dated 20.07.2015, it was found that in Ex.A-1/ suit promissory note, it is not mentioned that any money has been borrowed or advanced, but the sale transaction of the property has been specifically mentioned and that the sale consideration was mentioned as Rs.20,00,000/-, and it is recited that there is a balance sum of Rs.11,00,000/- payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, hence the promissory note was executed. The Trial Court found that in Ex.A-2 i.e., the copy of the sale deed, which was marked, it is covenanted that the total sale consideration was fixed as Rs.10,00,000/-, as the plaintiff has, for the purposes of his family expenses, obtained the same as cash on the date of sale deed. And in consideration thereof, the sale deed has been executed. Therefore, the Trial Court held that once it is admitted that the sale consideration is for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, then the contents of the promissory note being contrary to the registered document, cannot be acted upon. The Trial Court found that when Ex.A-5/ sale deed is a false one, and is created to cheat the Government to evade the stamp duty, then such a transaction is impliedly barred under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the Appeal Suit is filed before this Court.

D. The submissions :

5.Mr. R .Rajarajan, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the defendant had duly signed the promissory note and did not deny the execution thereof and remained ex-parte. The presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is very much available for the suit promissory note. If the parties have undervalued the sale, it can be a