The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is robust against mere denial by the borrower of signing promissory notes.

JUDGMENT

A. The Appeal Suit :

This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 01.06.2016 in O.S.No.24 of 2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, in and by which, the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,74,250/- with further interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of plaint was decreed by the Trial Court.

B. The Plaint :

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.11.2005 for the purpose of constructing house and for agricultural expenses and executed the suit 'A' promissory on the same day at Echanampatti village, Palacode taluk promising to repay the same together with interest at the rate of Rs.1.50 ps per hundred per month on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order. Again the defendants had borrowed another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 15.03.2006 for the purpose of marriage of the daughter of the defendants 1 and 2 and sister of the third defendant and business expenses and executed the suit 'B' promissory note at Echanampatti village, Palacode taluk again promising to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs.1.50 ps per hundred per month on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order. However, thereafter, the defendants omitted and neglected to pay the interest or the principal amount and therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 29.10.2007. There was no positive response from the defendants and hence the suit.

C. The Written Statement :

3. The suit was resisted by the written statement filed by the first defendant and adopted by the defendants 2 and 3. The defendants denied that neither any amount was borrowed nor the suit pronotes were executed. The defendants could not reply to the legal notice because after receipt of the legal notice, they misplaced the same. The case of the defendants is that the plaintiff was working as a Commercial Tax Officer and he had purchased about 30 acres of land in that area and the said land was entrusted to the defendants on lease for cultivation. At the time of entering into lease, the defendants' signatures were obtained in the stamp papers and blank pronotes for security purpose. However, after the lease was over and when the defendants surrendered the agricultural lands to the plaintiff, while the plaintiff returned the lease deed, he represented that the blank pronotes and stamp papers were misplaced and promised that he will hand those over to the defendants as and when he traces out. Later on, only because the defendants did not agree to sell their lands also to the plaintiff, he is now misusing those blank promissory note forms and stamp papers and has filed the suit.

D. The Issues :

4. On the strength of the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.11.2005 and executed suit 'A' pronote?

2. Whether the defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.3.2006 and executed suit 'B' pronote?

3. Whether the plaintiff has obtained signatures of the defendants in stamp papers and in some blank pronotes for the security purposes?

4. Whether the suit pronotes are false documents and the signatures of the defendants were forged?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for?

6. To what reliefs if any?

E. The Evidence :

5. On the said issues, the parties let in evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one Sigamani, the brother of the plaintiff and attesting witness of suit 'A' and 'B' pronotes was examined as