Advocates:
['M/S S S SWAMINATHAN', '', 'RA SRIVIDHYA', 'H S MOHAMED RAFI', 'M/S V S KESVAN', '', 'B SINGARAVELU', 'FOR SOLE RESPT']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:11.07.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

A.S.No.188 of 2010

Narayana Sathiya Siva Senathipathi

... Appellant/Defendant

Vs

Natarajan

... Respondent/Plaintiff

This appeal is filed under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1

and 2 C.P.C. against the judgement and decree dated 29.01.2008

passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast

Track Court, Dharapuram in OS.No.4 of 2006.

For Appellant

: Mr.S.S.Swaminathan

For Respondent : Mr.V.S.Kesavan

J U D G E M E N T

The defendant in OS.No.4 of 2006, which is a suit for

recovery of money, is the appellant. The said suit was filed by

the respondent/plaintiff based on the promissory note dated

15.12.2002 under which, according to the appellant/defendant had

borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- agreeing to repay the amount

with interest at 12% per annum. According to the plaintiff he

issued a notice demanding the repayment on 08.09.2005 to which

the defendant sent a reply seeking a copy of the promissory note

on 13.09.2005. Immediately on 15.09.2005 a copy of promissory

note was sent to the counsel for the defendant and on receipt of

the same, nearly after a month i.e. 20.10.2005, the defendant

sent a reply claiming that the promissory note has been created

by the plaintiff utilizing his signature obtained in blank forms

when he was employed with the plaintiff. According to the

plaintiff, the claim in the reply notice is false. Therefore,

he is entitled to the decree for repayment for a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/- along with 12% interest per annum.

2. The defendant resisted the suit contending that there was

no borrowing. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was the

proprietor of one Madurakaliamman Textiles and the plaintiff's

sister was running a textile business in the name of Spear Tex.

The defendant joined as an employee in Spear Tex in the year

1999. Since the defendant's job involved dealing with cash as

well as going to banks and looking after the banking

transactions of both the businesses the plaintiff had obtained

his signature as well as the left thumb impression in blank

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

papers and blank promissory notes as a security.

3. During the course of the employment, they became family

friends and the defendant and his father had deposited the title

deeds and stood as guarantors for repayment of the loans

obtained by the plaintiff in the course of the business. The

defendant and his father had also handed over the original

documents relating to the properties as security for borrowing

made by the plaintiff from the Bank of Madura and thereafter the

Corporation Bank.

4. Since the plaintiff defaulted in repayment of loans the

property belonging to the defendant and his father were

advertised to be sold by the Bank under the provisions of the

SARFAESI Act. When the defendant and his father demanded the

plaintiff to repay the bank loan by selling his properties, the

relationship became strained and hence, the plaintiff utilising

the blank signatures obtained from the defendant had created the

promissory note and filed the present Suit.

5. On the above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge, framed

the following issues for determination in the suit:

1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit

amount as claimed in the plaint?

2)Whether the suit promissory note is true?

3)Whether the suit promissory note is created a

document and is legally invalid?

4)Whether the suit promissory note is not supported

by consideration?

5)To what relief that the plaintiff is entitled?

6. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one

Shanmugasundaram, who is the attestor to the suit promissory

note, as P.W.2. Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked. The defendant

examined himself as D.W.1 and Exhibits B1 to B4 were marked.

7.