Execution of a promissory note carries a legal presumption of consideration; defendants failed to establish a fraudulent intent regarding settlement deed.

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendants in a suit for recovery of monies to the tune of Rs.10,28,250/-, based on a promissory note and declaration that the settlement deed dated 06.12.2018 executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 2^nd defendant is null and void, are the appellants herein.

2.The averments in the plaint, set out briefly:

The defendants are father and son. The 1^st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.9 lakhs from the plaintiff on 07.10.2017 and evidencing the borrowing, he executed a on demand promissory note on the same day, undertaking to repay the amount of Rs.9 lakhs, together with interest at the rate of Rs.2/- for every Rs.100/- per month. According to the plaintiff, the debt was incurred by the 1^st defendant for family necessity and to meet the family expenses which was known to all the family members of the 1^st defendant. The plaintiff was constrained to issue a notice on 01.04.2019, since the 1^st defendant committed default in payment of even interest, despite demands made by the plaintiff. It is also averred in the plaint that in order to defraud the plaintiff and other creditors, the 1^st defendant had executed a nominal settlement deed on 06.12.2018 in favour of his son, the 2^nd defendant. The said settlement deed was also challenged in the suit.

3.The written statement filed by the defendants, set out briefly:

The defendants admit the relationship between the defendants, as also the factum of the 1^st defendant carrying on agricultural activities. It is contended by the defendants that the plaintiff was running a chit business for several years and the 1^st defendant was a member and he had joined three chits for Rs.2 lakhs and six chits for Rs.1 lakh, totalling, in all, nine chits and according to the defendants, one of the said nine chits was still alive/going on. The plaintiff was carrying on the chit business, without duly registering the same before the competent authority, which was known to the entire village.

4.It is therefore the contention of the defendants that the promissory note was executed on blank stamp papers only as security for ensuring that the successful bidder would pay the installments without fail. It is also contended by the defendants that the 2nddefendant was a Constable in CRPF and he is earning sufficiently and he has constructed a house, after availing a loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the State Bank of India in August 2018. The 2nddefendant was also married in November 2018 and he has been living there ever since and there was no necessity for the 1stdefendant to borrow Rs.9 lakhs, much less agreed to repay the same, together with interest as claimed by the plaintiff.

5.It is the further contention of the defendants that the plaintiff does not have any means to advance the huge sum of Rs.9 lakhs and that the plaintiff had abused the 1stdefendant in unparliamentary language and threatened the 1stdefendant for not paying the chit installment, one year preceding the filing of the suit and that the plaintiff had even went to the extent of threatening that he would stop the 2nddefendant's marriage as well as the house warming ceremony. It is also contended by the defendants that the signature of the 1stdefendant was forged by the plaintiff to maintain the suit. The defendants have denied that there was any family necessity of family expenses, warranting the borrowing of Rs.9 lakhs. The factum of the marriage of the 2nddefendant being celebrated on 14.11.2018 and the housing loan obtained by the 2nddefendant for constructing a house in the subject property was sufficient to demonstrate that the 1stdefendant was not requiring