IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

S.A.NO.698 OF 2017

AND

C.M.P.NO.17973 OF 2017

[Physical Mode]

Chakravarthy

... Appellant/Plaintiff

.Vs.

Pachamuthu

... Respondent/Defendant

PRAYER:-

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure

Code, to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the

Principal District Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.45 of 2013 dated

30.04.2014 in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the II

Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in O.S.No.108 of 2010

dated 05.11.2013.

For Appellant

:

Mr.T.Gandhi

JUDGEMENT

(1)

The Appellant in this second appeal is the plaintiff in

the suit in OS.No.108/2010 on the file of the II

Additional Sub Court, Villupuram. The appellant, as

plaintiff, filed the suit for a recovery of sum of

Rs.3,04,700/- with interest on the principal amount of

Rs.2,40,000/- based on the two promissory notes

executed by the defendant on 12.06.2007 (for a sum

of Rs.1,20,000/-) and on 13.06.2007 (for a sum of

Rs.1,20,000/-)

(2)

It is stated by the appellant that the defendant borrowed

a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on 12.06.2007 for his family

expenses and again a further sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13.06.2007 for the defendants expenses towards

agricultural operations with 12% interest. The appellant

further states that the defendant refused to settle the

amount despite repeated requests. Thus the suit came to be

filed by the appellant.

(3)

The suit was contested by the respondent/defendant mainly

on the ground that the plaintiff used to get promissory

notes for double the amounts and with regard to suit

promissory note, it was contented that the plaintiff

obtained two blank pronotes mentioning a sum of

Rs.60,000/- under the pretext that some more amount is

also due by calculating interest exorbitantly. It is the

specific case of the defendant that the suit promissory

notes have been materially altered by deleting the sum of

Rs. 60,000/- and by inserting the figure 1,20,000/-.

(4)

The trial Court after framing necessary issues and after

considering the fact that the defendant had admitted his

signature in the suit promissory notes and also relying

upon Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, held that

the plaintiff has proved the execution of promissory notes

by the defendant and therefore, he is entitled to get the

decree as prayed for.

(5)

Even though a specific issue was framed as to whether

there is a material alteration in the suit promissory note

as alleged in the written statement, the trial Court held

that there is no material alteration in the pronote. Since

the trial Court held that execution of pronote is proved

passing of consideration should be presumed by invoking

Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and decreed the

suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree

passed by the learned II Additional Sub Ordinate Judge,

Villupuram in O.S.No.108/2010 on 05.11.2013 the defendant

preferred an appeal in A.S.No.45/2013 before the Principal

District Judge, Villupuram.

(6)

The Lower Appellate Court after framing points for

consideration and independently considering the whole

case, set aside the Judgement and decree of the trial

Court in O.S.No.108/2010 on 05.11.2013 and allowed the

appeal by accepting the case of the defendant. The Lower

Appellate Court held that the plaintiff had materially

altered the pronote by correcting the figures and

therefore, he is not entitled to the suit claim. As a

result the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be

dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the

Lower Appellate Court, in A.S.No.45/2013 dated 30.04.2014,

reversing the judgement and decree of the trial Court in

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/