Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 82468
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J
SENNAN – Appellant
Versus
SHOBA – Respondent
S.A. No.1379 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2012
Mr. P. Valliappan, Senior Counsel. for Mr. T. Deeraj, Mr. R. Parthiban
The court upheld the validity of the promissory note and the plaintiffs' claims, confirming the discretion of the court in allowing the payment of deficit court fees under Section 149 of the CPC.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 149 - Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act - Recovery of money - Plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of Rs.95,081.25/- based on a promissory note for Rs.75,000/- with interest - Defendant denied receipt of loan and claimed only Rs.15,000/- was borrowed - Trial Court decreed suit in favor of plaintiffs, confirming execution of promissory note - First Appellate Court upheld the decree, addressing issues of court fee and evidence - Second Appeal dismissed, confirming lower court's findings. (Paras 1-38)
(B) Court Fees - Deficit court fee - Application under Section 149 CPC allowed by Trial Court, confirming that the plaintiffs paid the deficit court fee within the stipulated time - The discretion of the court in allowing such applications cannot be questioned post-facto. (Paras 24-36)
(C) Evidence - Execution of promissory note - Evidence from witnesses corroborated the plaintiffs' claims regarding the loan and execution of the promissory note - Defendant failed to provide evidence supporting his claims. (Paras 9-12, 30-32)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.95,081.25/- based on a promissory note executed by the defendant for Rs.75,000/- with interest. The defendant denied the loan amount and claimed he only borrowed Rs.15,000/-. The Trial Court found in favor of the plaintiffs based on the evidence presented.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court and First Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs established their case through credible evidence, including the promissory note.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the promissory note, the payment of court fees, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the execution of the promissory note was established through credible witness testimony, and the application for condonation of delay in paying court fees was validly allowed.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed, confirming the judgments of the lower courts.
JUDGMENT
The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs has been decreed as against which the appellant has filed first appeal and the same was also dismissed. Therefore, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendant as referred in the original suit.
3. Originally the suit in O.S.No.229 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of Rs.95,081.25/- from the defendant, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of plaint and 6% per annum till the date of realization.
4. The contention of the plaintiffs in the plaint is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from one Maheswari/the first plaintiff on 21.11.1999 and executed a promissory note on the same day promising to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Despite agreeing to repay, the defendant failed to do so. On 09.07.2002, the first plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding the payment. The defendant responded to the said notice and issued a reply notice dated 23.07.2002, denying all the contentions raised by the first plaintiff in the legal notice. Even though the defendant replied to the first plaintiff, he did not pay the principal amount or interest. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed the present suit to recover the sum of Rs.75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
5. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff, Maheswari, passed away on 20.05.2007. Subsequently, applications were filed to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased first plaintiff and the second and third plaintiffs were brought on record.
6. The defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and contended that he never received Rs.75,000/- loan from the first plaintiff on 21.11.1999. Instead, he borrowed Rs.15,000/- and paid Rs.1,500/- towards interest for the said sum. Further, he contended that after deducting the interest amount, he had received only a sum of Rs.13,500/- from the first plaintiff. Additionally, he also paid the interest of Rs.1,500/- for the consecutive two months. Even though the first plaintiff lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, he handed over a sum of Rs.3,000/- in the police station, by which, totally he had settled a sum of Rs.6,000/-. Later the first plaintiff paid the principal along with interest to the total sum of Rs.15,000/-. In addition, he contended that the plaintiff obtained signature on blank stamped and unstamped papers besides the promissory note which were made use of for filing the present suit.
7. The Trial Court had formulated the following issues based on the plaint and the written statement:-
“1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount?
2) What other relief is available to the plaintiff?”
8. Before the Trial Court, the first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, who died after deposition. One Maruthambal and one Kannan were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively and the documents Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. The defendant was examined as D.W.1 and his wife, namely, one Pushpavalli was examined as D.W.2 but no document was marked on the side of the defendant.
9. The Trial Court, while evaluating the evidence and documents marked on either side, considered Ex.A1/promissory note dated 21.11.1999, executed by the defendant on the same date in favour of the first plaintiff for a sum of Rs.75,000/-. The Trial Court observed that P.W.2 and P.W.3, witnesses, corroborated the evidence of first plaintiff with regard to Ex.A1/promissory note. Thus, it was held that the plaintiffs established their case that the defendant received the said amount for his urgent requirement and affixed his signature in the promissory note in the presence of witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3.
10. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, it was stated that the defendant affixed his signature in the promissory note and
