Failure to prove execution and consideration for promissory notes confirms validity of Trial Court's decision to dismiss the suit.

Appeal by the plaintiff who lost the suit for recovery of money before the Trial Court. The facts leading to the appeal is as under:

2. The defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.30,50,000/- on 21.04.2003 and executed two promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff promising to pay the said amount on demand together with 24% interest per annum. Inspite of reasonable demand, they failed and neglected to pay the amount borrowed with interest as promised. Hence, demand notice dated 17.05.2003 has been issued to the defendants calling upon them to pay the said amount. Thereafter, the suit for recovery of Rs.31,02,866 with 24%

interest per annum has been filed.

3. The first defendant in his written statement denied the averments of the plaintiff and has made a specific allegation that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. The first defendant had several chit transaction with Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd. between 1998 and 2002. In this, the first defendant subscribed more than 100 chits, later found that there were several irregularities and excess collection of commissions etc. to the tune of Rs.10.00 lakhs.

4. The first defendant caused notice to the Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd., Pollachi branch on 24.01.2003. However, there was no proper reconciliation of the accounts. In the said circumstances, the blank signed cheques and stamp papers been misused to institute the present Suit. Several other allegations have also been made in the written statement but it is not necessary for the point for determination in this appeal. Hence, this Court is not adverting to those averments.

5. An identical written statement has also been filed by the second defendant.

6. To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff has marked 5 documents as Ex.A1 to A5 and examined one Satheesh Kumar as P.W.1. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant G.Vijayakumar was examined as D.W.1 and marked 26 documents as Exs.B1 to B26.

7. The Trial Court has framed the following 7 issues and in light of the evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the suit without costs.

'1. Whether the pronotes dated 21.04.2003 are true, valid and supported by consideration?

2. Whether the suit is barred by law in view of the order in CRP NPD No.4682 of 2015 dated 28.09.2016? 3. Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the pronotes are invalid in the absence of the particulars as to the person who typed it and signed it as witness?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for?

6. Whether the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the suit claim?

7. Whether the letter dated 17.04.2003 (Ex.A5) typed in NJS paper for Rs.20/- is forged one for the purpose of this suit?'

8. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed on the ground that the Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the suit when the plaintiff has proved the liability of the defendants through promissory notes executed by them on 21.04.2003 pursuant to the undertaking letter dated 17.04.2003 executed under Ex.A.5. The signatures in the promissory notes admitted by the defendants and the plea of the first defendant that it was executed in a blank paper and misused by the plaintiff is not substantiated by adequate evidence.

9. While so, the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act in the promissory notes ought to have been drawn by the Trial Court which the Trial Court has miserably failed. It is also contended that the self- serving documents marked by the defendants as Exs.B4 and B5 been given undue weightage to reject the lawful claim of the plaintiff.

10. The Trial Court erred in misapplication of Exs.B9 series, Ex.B.15 to Ex.B.26 wh