The presumption of consideration under Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable; the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove execution and consideration when denied.

JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit is directed against the against the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.07.2024 made in O.S.No.7842 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.

2. The suit for recovery of money based on the promissory note alleged to have executed by one Krishna Kumar and his wife Pungothai for a loan of Rs 10,00,000/- with promise to pay on demand with interest, decreed as prayed. Hence the appeal by the aggrieved defendants.

The Plaint averments:

3. Krishna Kumar (deceased) is the husband of the first defendant and father of the second defendant. The plaintiff and Krishna Kumar (deceased) were employed in TNSC Bank and known to each other. In the year 2020, Krishna Kumar and his wife Pungothai (first defendant) approached the plaintiff at TNSC Bank, Head Office, NSC Bose Road, Chennai and sought loan of Rs 5,00,000/- and promised to repay it with interest. On mutual discussion, the plaintiff extended loan of Rs 5,00,000/- to Krishna Kumar and his wife Pungothai (first defendant) during the month of February, 2020 in his Bank premises on the promise that the loan will be repaid within a short period with 24% interest. As promised, they paid the interest upto the month of June, 2020. In the month of July 2020, Krishna Kumar and his wife again approached him and sought for additional loan of Rs 5,00,000/- and promised to repay it within short span with 24% interest. The plaintiff believing them, gave the additional loan in the month of July, 2020. As security Krishna Kumar and his wife gave two undated cheques for Rs.5,00,000/- each, bearing Nos: 130276 and 130277 drawn at Tamil Nadu State Apex Bank, Washermanpet Branch.

4. The said Krishna Kumar and his wife Pungothai were remitting the interest and part principle amount to the account of Mariappan on various dates from 31.07.2020 to 29.04.2021, totalling a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-. Thereafter, neither paid the principle nor the interest. On enquiry they sought time for repayment and executed a promissory note on 18.02.2021 in the premises of TNSC Bank, NSC Bose Road, Chennai. While being so, Krishna Kumar died leaving behind his wife (first defendant) and son the second defendant with a debt of Rs.14,15,000/- payable to the plaintiff. Notice demanding the money sent to the residential address of the defendants. Same was returned unserved with postal endorsement “Addressee left”. However, the first defendant received the notice sent to the address her work place and she replied on 28.08.2022 denying liability. Hence the suit.

5. In the written statement of the first defendant, which is adopted by the second defendant, the first defendant admits that the plaintiff is a friend of her husband Krishna Kumar. According to her, from her husband she came to know that the plaintiff and his friends were running a 'Gold Chit' and they compelled her husband to join the chit. Three months after the demise of her husband, the plaintiff approached her under the guise of helping her, demanded money to arrange job and for settlement of her husband’s service benefit. As days went, the plaintiff's demand turned into threat. The plaintiff pressurised her to part away Rs.10,00,000/- showing two blank cheques signed by her husband and a blank Rs.20/- stamp paper with a forged signatures of her and her husband. Denying the signatures on the stamp paper, the defendants also contended that, the money debited from her husband’s bank account to the plaintiff’s account is for the Gold chit subscription paid monthly and not towards interest for the loan of Rs.10,00,000/-. If the case of the plaintiff is true,