A.S.(MD)No.103 of 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 18.03.2022

Pronounced on

: 20.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

A.S.(MD)No.103 of 2017

Natarajan

... Appellant/Defendant

Vs.

M.Thangavel

... Respondent/Plaintiff

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code,

against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District

Judge, Karur, dated 10.08.2016 passed in O.S.No.47 of 2011.

For Appellant

: Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan

For Mr.T.K.Gopalan

For Respondent

: Mr.M.P.Senthil

JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and

decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur, dated

10.08.2016 made in O.S.No.47 of 2011.

2. The Appellant is the defendant; the plaintiff has filed the suit

for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note dated

05.11.2009; the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from

the plaintiff for his personal needs and family expenditure and in

consideration thereof, he had executed a promissory note; he agreed

to repay the above said amount with interest at the rate of Rs.1.50

per Rs.100 per month either to the plaintiff or to his order on

demand; despite repeated request, the defendant did not pay the loan

amount; the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 15.11.2011, calling

upon the defendant to pay the loan amount; since the defendant

refused to pay the loan amount after receiving legal notice from the

plaintiff, he filed the suit for recovery of money due to him.

3. The defendant filed a written statement stating that the

defendant is not well known to the plaintiff; the defendant actually

borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 31.03.2009, from one Loganathan

and Subramani, who are running a finance company in the name and

style of “VSL Leasing Finance Company” and on the same day, they

obtained unfilled signed promissory note in writing by mentioning a

sum of Rs.2,00,000/- at the top of the promissory note and also they

1/7

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

A.S.(MD)No.103 of 2017

obtained a blank cheque for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State

Bank of Mysore; the plaintiff inserted numerical figure '1' in front

of numerical figure '2' to make as Rs.12,00,000/-; Loganathan had

given cheque to one Karthick, who was not known to the defendant and

Karthick withdrew a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from his account and in

this regard, the defendant lodged a complaint before the police; the

plaintiff does not have capacity to lend a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-;

hence, the suit should be dismissed.

4. Based on both pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the

following issues:-

“i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to amount as claimed

in the plaint?

ii)Whether the pronote was created by forgery with the

help of one Loganathan as alleged?

iii) To what relief of any plaintiff entitled?”

5.During the course of evidence, on the side of the plaintiff, two

witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A18 were

marked; on the side of the defendant, two witnesses were examined as

D.W.1 and D.W.2 and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked.

6.At the end of the trial, on considering the evidence on record,

the learned trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved

over the same, this Appeal Suit has been filed.

7.Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the learned trial Judge had ignored the evidence of handwriting

expert who had stated that numerical '1' has been inserted

subsequently before numerical '2'; that would show that the

promissory note was fabricated; the learned trial Judge has not

taken into account the complicity of fact of Loganathan and

Subramani in not filing the suit against the appellant out of past

motive in the real estate business; despite a petition was filed for

referring the admitted signature of the appellant/defendant to the

hand writing expert, the s