IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.10.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR S.A. No. 149 of 2022 Krishnasamy ... Plaintiff / Respondent / Appellant Vs.

1. N. Rajendran

2. R. Usha ... Defendants/ Appellants / Respondents Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.09.2021 made in A.S. No.4 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional District Judge at Vellore @ Ranipet, by reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 24.07.2018 made in O.S. No.24 of 2016 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court at Arakkonam.

For Appellant : Mr. M. Samuel Raja For Respondents : No Appearance ******

JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the plaintiff, he has come forward to institute the suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest on the basis of the promissory note dated 16.02.2013.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have jointly received Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 16.02.2013 and executed a promissory note on the same day, as security for repayment of the loan amount. Even though, the plaintiff had demanded the defendants to repay the money, they have not come forward to repay the same, hence he constrained to issue legal notice dated 23.01.2016 and the same was received by the first defendant on behalf of the second defendant on 27.01.2016, even thereafter, the defendants have not come forward to repay the money, hence the suit was instituted by the plaintiff.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement and stated that the first defendant and the plaintiff were doing Multi Travel Marketing, like a chain link business, in which the first defendant was working under the plaintiff. The plaintiff had invested Rs.50,000/- in the said business on behalf of the first defendant and promised that the first defendant will earn Rs.10,000/- per month, on that basis the plaintiff had received three unfilled promissory notes signed by the first defendant and his wife on 16.02.2013 and also a cheque bearing No.188366 drawn on the State Bank of India, Arakkonam Branch. Since there was a loss in the said business, the plaintiff had demanded repayment of money and also claimed interest @ 60% per annum, which was not accepted by the defendants. Due to the pressure put on the defendants by the plaintiff, the first defendant had entered into a registered mortgage deed of his property with the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 28.04.2014. Further, the plaintiff had also filed separate suits against the defendants before the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam in O.S.No.13 of 2016 based on another promissory note for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/- and also a cheque bounce case in C.C.No.232 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Thiruttani. All these facts have been suppressed by the plaintiff, hence prays to dismiss the suit.

4. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings made on both sides framed following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,71,933/- with interest as prayed for?

2. To what other relief?

5. The Trial Court after considering the submissions and evidence placed on record, accepted the case of the plaintiff, based on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment reported in [1999 (1) CTC 497 (S.C)], while interpreting presumption arising under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and held that the defendants have failed to probablize their case for non passing of consideration and thereby, decreed the suit.

6. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendants have filed an appeal in A.S. No.4 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet. After considering the arguments of both sides and evidence placed on record, the lower Appellate Court, after framing necessary points had held that there is suppression of vital materials with regard to filing of various cases against the defendants and further one of the attester's evidence recorded in O.S. No.1