IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 27.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 12.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE A.S. No.81 of 2020 S. Murugesan … Appellant Vs.

P.Suguna … Respondent PRAYER in A.S.: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.98 of 2015 on the file of 1^st Additional District Judge at Tiruppur.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Myilsamy For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan

J U D G M E N T

This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2019 passed in O.S. No.98 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur, whereby the suit for recovery of money was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment in the same rank as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 27.07.2012 for business purposes and, towards repayment of the said loan, executed an on-demand promissory note dated 27.07.2012 in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 1% per month. As security for the loan, the defendant allegedly handed over the original settlement deed dated 31.01.2005 executed by her father in her favour. According to the plaintiff, despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay either the principal or the interest. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 24.04.2015, which was received by the defendant on 28.04.2015. As there was no reply or payment, the suit came to be filed.

4. The defendant denied all the plaint allegations and specifically denied the execution of the promissory note dated 27.07.2012, as well as the signature found therein. It was her categorical defence that there was no necessity for her to borrow any loan from the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff and her husband were jointly engaged in transport business, and for the purpose of obtaining a bus permit, they required a solvency certificate before the Regional Transport Office. For that purpose, her husband handed over the original settlement deed belonging to the defendant to the plaintiff. It is further alleged that, owing to business rivalry and differences of opinion that arose subsequently, the plaintiff misused the availability of the original settlement deed and created a forged promissory note in the name of the defendant. The defendant also stated that after receipt of the legal notice, there were compromise talks, and believing the assurance of the plaintiff—allegedly made in the presence of panchayatdars—that the settlement deed would be returned, she did not send a reply notice.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the necessary issues. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 as attesting/connected witnesses, and marked Exs. A1 to A6. On the side of the defendant, the defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and examined D.W.2 (her husband) and D.W.3 (handwriting expert), and marked Exs. B1 to B3. The forensic expert’s report was marked as Ex.C1.

6. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant, and consequently dismissed the suit.

7. In the memorandum of this appeal, the appellant contends that the dismissal was illegal and contrary to evidence; that execution and consideration were proved through the scribe and attesting witnesses; and that the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ought to have been drawn in his favour. The appellant also attacks the defence as implausible and highlights non-issuance of reply notice and non- examination of an alleged mediator (Shajkumar), and challenges reliance on expert