The court established that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish passing of consideration in a promissory note claim, which was not satisfied in this case.

J U D G M E N T

The defendant is the suit for recovery of money on a promissory note, is the appellant herein.

2. The plaint averment:

On 07.09.2014, from the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to discharge his loan with one Natarajan and to meet out the family expenses. The defendant gave a promissory note with undertaking that he will pay the money with interest at the rate of 12% pa on demand. The defendant despite several oral demand to repay the money borrowed, failed to return the money. Hence notice dated 12.09.2016 issued calling upon the defendant to repay the debt as promised or to face consequence. The notice returned as refused. Hence the suit.

3. The gist of the written statement:

The borrowal of Rs.10,00,000/- on 07.09.2014 from the plaintiff and execution of the pronote to the plaintiff is denied. According to the defendant, Natarajan who is mentioned in the plaint is none other than the son-in-law of the plaintiff. Conveniently story created as if the defendant owe money to the said Natarajan and to discharge that loan, the defendant borrowed the loan under the suit promissory note. In fact, the plaintiff is a money lender. He possesses the habit of lending money charging exorbitant rate of interest and getting signatures in blank promissory notes. when the defendant borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff during the year 2008, about 20 blank pronotes were obtained from him. One of those pronotes is now been misused by the plaintiff by filing the suit for recovery of money, in spite of repayment of the loan amount. The plaintiff had also issued a notice to the wife of the defendant as if she had entered into a sale agreement on 23.10.2014 in favour of the plaintiff to sell her property for a consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- and executed sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged pre-suit notice not sent to the known address of the defendant. The defendant is not aware of notice or its content. Any event, the plaint is not maintainable, since the defendant is an agriculturalist and the interest rate claimed is not permissible.

4. The trial court framed the following issues for consideration: -

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim as prayed ?

2) To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled ?

5. The plaintiff examined as PW-1. Ex A-1 to Ex A-14 were marked.

Defendant examined as DW-1. Ex B-1 and Ex B-2 marked. The trial court held that the execution of pronote Ex.A-1 dated 07.09.2014 and passing of consideration proved.

6. In the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, Ex A-4 to Ex A-14 are not related to the suit pronote transaction. Without examining the attestors of the pronote and the scribe of the pronote, the trial court has erroneously held that the execution and passing of consideration proved. The plaintiff has not proved the sufficient means to advance Rs.10,00,000/-. The presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act , and Section 20 of the been wrongly applied by the court below.

7. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that, the appellant had admitted borrowing of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent in the year 2010. He claims that the loan was discharged. But no document to prove the discharge of earlier loan not placed before the court.

8. In the cross examination, the appellant admit that, for the loan he borrowed, paid Rs.11,00,000/- along with interest and Rs 2,00,000/- towards the mortgage debt of his wife. Totally, he gave Rs 17,50,000/- to the plaintiff. However for discharge of the loan, no receipt filed by the defendant. Hence, the trial court has rightly allowed the suit.

9. Point for Determination:

(i) Whether the plaintiff had proved the passing of consideration