Madras High Court
T.Dennis vs Christudas (Died) .. 1St on 12 January, 2017
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On :11.03.2022
Delivered On : 22.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008
T.Dennis .. Appellant / Defendant
Vs.
1.Christudas (Died) .. 1st Respondent / Plaintiff
2.Mary Leela
3.Abin Christals
4.Ajin Christals
5.Ajitha Christy .. Respondents / Lrs of deceased R1
(respondents 2 to 5 brought on record as the Lrs of the
deceased first respondent vide Court order,
dated 12.01.2017, made in
M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2012)
Prayer : This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.9 of 2004, on the file of the
Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, dated 30.06.2007.
For Appellant : Mr.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel
for M/s. Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair for R2 to R5
R1 : Died
1 / 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.9 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, dated 30.06.2007. The appellant herein is the defendant, the first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the original suit. Since the first respondent herein / plaintiff had passed away, the respondents 2 to 4 herein were impleaded as the LR's of the deceased plaintiff.
2. The first respondent herein / plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money in O.S.No.9 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, and the suit was partly allowed by reducing the rate of interest at 12% p.a.. Against which, the appellant / defendant has filed the present appeal suit.
3.Brief substance of the plaint, in O.S.No.9 of 2004, is as follows:
On 05.11.1997, the defendant approached the plaintiff and demanded a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff, to complete his new building and he agreed to pay 24% interest. On receipt of the amount, the defendant executed a pro-note, but, the defendant did not pay any amount 2 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 either towards principal or towards interest. On 16.12.1997, the defendant borrowed another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, to start a business in his newly constructed building and agreed to repay the amount in 100 daily installment by paying Rs.1,000/- per day. The defendant executed a 'Sammatha Urithi Pathirom' (consent letter), on 16.12.1997 and he acknowledged the receipt of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant is wantonly evading payment, though he is having movable and immovable properties. The plaintiff demanded the amount on various occasions and the last demand was made on 25.09.2000 by way of sending a legal notice. The defendant did not send any reply and hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money.
4. Brief substance of the written statement filed by the defendant in O.S.No.9 of 2004 is as follows:-
The plaintiff suppressed the material facts in the case. The defendant came to know through his friend viz., Arulappan that the plaintiff is doing finance business and the plaintiff came to Nagercoil and received a loan of Rs.90,000/- with the instruction that the same has to be returned in 100 installments by paying Rs.1,000/- per day. On 16.12.1997, the defendant handed over a blank signed cheque and a stamp affixed signed blank paper.3 / 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 To avoid and to prevent any illegal activities of the plaintiff, the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.548 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil. The defendant deposited the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 20.10.1998. The defendant never received Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff either on 05.11.1997 or on any other date. The defendant never executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 05.11.1997. The defendant never received any legal notice. To win over the suit in O.S.No. 548 of 1998, filed by the defendant against the plaintiff, the plaintiff has come forward with this suit. The suit is to be dismissed.
5.On the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:
“ 1.Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 05.11.1997 from the plaintiff?
2.Whether the suit pronote is a true one?
3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed as prayed for?
4.To what relief?
6.On the side of the plaintiff, 2 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A9. On the side of the 4 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 defendant, 1 witness was examined as D.W.1 and 4 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B4. After considering the pleadings and evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for.
7. Against the decree, the defendant / appellant herein has preferred this appeal suit on the following grounds:-
7.1 The trial Court failed to consider that no consideration was passed on the pronote alleged to have been executed by the appellant in Ex.A1.
7.2. The trial Court failed to consider that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.90,000/- on 16.12.1997 and the said amount was settled. On the threatening of the respondent to misuse the blank papers, cheques, the appellant was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.548 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil for settlement of the accounts and for consequential relief of injunction and that the suit was decreed. A.S.No.14 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil, confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.548 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.5 / 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 7.3. The respondent failed to raise a claim of Rs.4,00,000/- in the earlier suit and as such he is not entitled to raise the claim in the present suit. The respondent is estopped. The trial Court is not correct in shifting the burden of proof on the defendant / appellant in the suit. The presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The evidence of P.W.1 was not supported by his own witness P.W.2, the scribe of the pronote (Ex.A1). The trial Court is wrong in drawing a presumption in favour of the plaintiff / respondent. P.W. 2, the scribe of the document (Ex.A1) has admitted that the defendant was not present at the time of execution of Ex.A1, the presumption in favour of the plaintiff is not supported by any witness. Though two witnesses were alleged to have been attested the pro-note, none of them was examined by the plaintiff.
8. On the basis of the grounds of appeal, the following issues were framed by this Court :-
I. Whether the defendant is correct in claiming that no consideration was passed on the pronote?6 / 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 (II) Whether the pronote is genuine?
(III) Whether the appeal is to be allowed?
Issue No.I:
9. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the respondent is a money lender. On 05.11.1997, the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent. The respondent paid only Rs.90,000/-, after deducting Rs.10,000/- towards interest. The agreement is to repay the amount at the ratio of Rs.1,000/- per day for 100 days. On 06.12.1997, the appellant handed over a stamp affixed signed blank paper and signed blank stamp paper and cheques. Since the respondent was threatening the appellant that he is going to misuse the document, the appellant filed a suit in O.S.No. 548 of 1998, for a prayer to declare that the loan was repaid and for an order of injunction, not to misuse the signed papers. The suit was partly decreed. But, the prayer for injunction was dismissed.
10. Against the judgment and decree, the appellant herein has filed an appeal in A.S.No.14 of 2008. The respondent herein has filed a cross 7 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 appeal. Both the appeal and cross appeal were dismissed. The evidence of P.W.2 did not support the case of the plaintiff. P.W.2 has deposed that the plaintiff bring the pronote to his office and he filled up the pronote. P.W.2 has admitted that the defendant was not present or signed the document in his presence and no consideration was passed on the pronote. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are contrary to each other.
11. On the side of the appellant / defendant, it is stated that only because the signature was admitted, the trial Court has decreed the suit and the trial Court failed to consider the other aspects of the case. The presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a rebuttable presumption. The defendant has to prove that no consideration was passed on the pronote. P.W.2, who is the scribe of Ex.A1 has deposed that no consideration was passed on the pro-note and that the defendant was not present. Hence, the initial burden of the defendant to prove that no consideration was passed was fulfilled by the evidence of P.W.2. Hence, the burden was shifted to the shoulders of the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to prove the passing of the consideration. The plaintiff failed to mark his passbook or his account books. The plaintiff failed to examine the attestor of Ex.A1. On the side of the appellant /defendant, it is stated that the filing of 8 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 the earlier case reveals that there was a possibility of the blank signed paper to have been misused against the appellant.
12. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the evidence of P.W.2 itself is sufficient to prove the non passing of the consideration. A mere probability is sufficient enough to discharge the burden of the defendant. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008-7- SC-655 [Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao V. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm and Ors ] is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:-
17.Under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court is obliged to presume, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also a settled position that the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the Court to believe the non-existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal.
... It is pellucid that if the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who would be 9 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. It is also discernible from the above decision that if the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his favour.“
13. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the respondent has failed to produce the pass book to prove that he withdraw the amount deposited in the Bank and that passing of consideration was not proved by the plaintiffs. A Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR – 1961- 0-SC-1316 [Kundan Lal Rallaram V. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay] is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:-
“7..... These three decisions lay down that it is the duty of a party to a suit in possession of important documents to produce them in court and if that duty is not discharged the court may as well draw the presumption which it is entitled to do under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Narayana Rao V. Venkatapayya, ILR (1937) Mad 299 considered the interaction of the provisions of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act in the matter of rebuttal of the presumption under the former section.” 10 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008
14. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that on 05.11.1997, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was borrowed by the defendant and he executed Ex.A1 undertaking to repay the loan amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. But, the defendant failed to repay the loan amount with interest. Notice-Ex.A6 was sent to the defendant. Notice was served on the defendant, acknowledgment card was marked as Ex.A7. Even after the receipt of the notice, the defendant failed to repay the amount or send a reply.
15. On the side of the respondent / plaintiff, it is further stated that under Section 118 of the NI Act, it is the duty of the defendant to prove that no consideration was passed on the pronote and that presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is in favour of the plaintiff.
16. Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, reads as follows:-
“118 Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. — Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:—
(a) of consideration —that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, 11 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;
(b) as to date —that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;
(c) as to time of acceptance —that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;
(d) as to time of transfer —that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;
(e) as to order of indorsements —that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon;
(f)as to stamps —that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;
(g) that holder is a holder in due course —that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course:
Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.“
17. A judgment in O.S.No.548 of 1998 was marked as Ex.A2 and the judgment in A.S.No.14 of 2002 was marked as Ex.A4. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that a case in Crime No.1088 of 1999 was registered against the plaintiff by the Kuzhithurai police station. Copy of the F.I.R was 12 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 marked as Ex.B1, judgment in C.C.No.121 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, was marked as Ex.B2 and copy of the decree in A.S.No.14 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil, was marked as Ex.B3. Bank receipts from the year 2001-2004 were marked as Ex.B4.
18. Under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is the duty of the defendant to prove that no consideration was passed on the pronote. Signature in the pronote was not disputed by the defendant. The earlier suit filed by the defendant was dismissed as to the prayer of injunction and hence, the judgment and decree in the earlier suit cannot be used in favour of the defendant.
19. The signature in the pronote was admitted by the appellant. P.W.2 is only a scribe. The evidence of a scribe regarding the passing of consideration is not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Except the oral evidence of D.W.1, there is no other evidence on the side of the defendant. Copy of the F.I.R and charge sheet are self serving document and hence, Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption. The prayer regarding the usage of 13 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 signed document was rejected by the Court in A.S.No.14 of 2002. In the above circumstances, it is decided that the appellant failed to prove that no consideration was passed on the pronote.
Issue No.II:-
20. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the pronote was not at all proved by the plaintiff. Already in the earlier suit, the defendant has taken a plea that the plaintiff obtained the signature of the defendant in blank stamped paper and in unstamped blank paper. When the earlier suit was pending, the plaintiff filed the present suit. Due to the pendency of the present suit, the prayer for injunction was not granted in the earlier case.
21. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the respondent / plaintiff cannot poke holes in the case of the appellant, who already got a decree of declaration in his favour. The earlier litigation itself is sufficient enough to substantiate that this is a second litigation and the innocents were taken for raid by the money lenders and prayed the Appeal suit to be allowed.
22. On the side of the respondents, it is further stated that the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No. 548 of 1998 for a prayer of settlement of 14 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 accounts and for an injunction, not to use the singed pronotes, cheque leaves and signed blank stamp papers, which were given as security for the loan.
The trial Court allowed the suit for settlement of the accounts and dismissed the suit for a prayer of injunction. Against that judgment and decree in O.S.No.548 of 1998, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.14 of 2002. That appeal was dismissed.
23. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the defendant borrowed another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and he executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff to repay the loan amount in 100 equal daily installments of Rs.1,000/- each, in that agreement, the earlier loan amount was mentioned by the defendant.
24. On the side of the defendant, it is stated that the plaintiff has relied on an agreement, wherein, it is alleged that the present transaction was admitted, but, the said agreement was not marked by the plaintiff and that the contents of Ex.A1 was not proved by the plaintiff.
25. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that copy of the judgment and decree of the earlier suits were filed as Ex.A2 to Ex.A5, Ex.A7 15 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 to Ex.A9 are postal acknowledgment card and paper publication. Copy of the suit notice was marked as Ex.A6. Promissory note was marked as Ex.A1.
26. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that when only the signature in the blank paper alone was admitted, the contents cannot be taken as an admission and the presumption is rebuttable. A judgment of this Court reported in AIR – 1975 - Madras – 333 [N.Ethirajulu Naidu V. K.R.Chinnikrishnan Chettiar] is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:-
“6. The trial Court has, without a strict scrutiny of the relevant circumstances, ascribed undue weight to two circumstances. The first is that the defendant has admitted his signature in Ex. A. 1. According to the trial Court, "the fact that EX. A. 1 contains the signature of the defendant is prima facie proof that the defendant had acknowledged his liability to pay the amount of Rs. 7830 Contained in Ex. A. 1 to the plaintiff . Hence there is absolutely no difficulty in holding that the defendant had acknowledged the correctness of the 'account stated' in Ex. A. 1." The lower court has overlooked the fact that the execution of a document implies intel-ligent and conscious appreciation of the con-tents thereof and the facts connected there-with; and where the defendant admitted only that he had put his signature in a blank piece of paper, which, he alleged, had possibly been utilised for fabricating Ex A. 1 it cannot be regarded as his having admitted the execution or Ex. A. 1. The 16 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 onus of proving that a particular paper, which is the basis of a suit was duly executed by the defendant, must, therefore, have been thrown upon the shoulders of the plaintiff.“
27. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that when a person admitted his signature in a promissory note, he empowers the holder in due course to fill up the blank papers and to make a Negotiable Instrument. A judgment of this Court reported in 2002-1-MWN-830 (Samikannu Naicker V. Sigamani) is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows: -
“22. In our case, the defendant admitted the signature in the suit promissory note and what he would state is that the rest of the contents in the suit promissory note were not there at the time when he signed in the stamped paper and the writings were subsequently filled up. We have already seen Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which empowers the 'holder in due course' to fill up the blanks and to negotiate the instrument. As such, the promissory note given by the defendant is admitted and the burden shifts upon the defendant that the writings in the promissory note were subsequently filled up and he has not borrowed the amount under the promissory note, which the defendant has not proved in this case. Presumptions with regard to the negotiable instruments as stated under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are also in favour of the 17 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 plaintiff. As the defendant is not able to prove the contrary versions with regard to consideration, as to date as to stamps and also that holder is a holder in due course and in the said circumstances, the presumptions have got to be drawn in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, on that score also the defendant has to fail.”
28. Another judgment of this Court reported in 1997-2-MLJ-147 (Talamalai Chetty V. Rathinasamy) is cited, wherein, this Court has observed that the Judgment of the Lower Court has to be set aside, in view of the provision of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
29. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that burden of proof is on the defendant. A judgment of this Court 2006-3-CTC-23 is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:-1.
“11. As rightly pointed out by the courts below, the presumption under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is in favour of the respondent. The appellant herein has admitted the execution of the suit pronote, Ex.A2. His signature, Ex.A1 is also admitted by him. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contemplates that where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instrument then in force in ( India) and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable 18 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount: provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.”
30. A perusal of Ex.A2 to A6 and Ex.B3 reveals that the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.548 of 1998, wherein, he has categorically admitted that he has handed over signed blank stamp papers, signed stamp affixed blank papers and signed cheques as security for the loan, he obtained from the present plaintiff. In short, the defendant has admitted his signature in Ex.A1. Even in the written statement in paragraph – 5, the defendant has admitted that he handed over signed blank cheques signed blank stamp paper and stamp affixed signed blank paper.
31. The prayer for injunction not to use the signed stamp affixed, signed blank paper was negativated in the earlier suit. The signature in Ex.A1 was admitted by the defendant. The defendant is contesting the 19 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 content of the pronote, but, he failed to send any reply to the plaintiff. When the signature in a document is admitted by the defendant, the contents cannot be denied.
32. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, reads as follows :-
'Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount.
'The instrument may be wholly blank or incomplete in any particular, in either case, the holder has the authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one'.
Therefore, once it is admitted that the defendant has signed the promissory note, his liability cannot be denied. I am 20 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 fortified in my view by the case reported in Chidambaram v. P. T. Ponnusamy, 1995 (2) Law weekly, 719 wherein this Court has held that"from a reading of the above Section, it is clear that Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is itself authority to the holder of inchoate stamped and signed instrument to fill up the blanks and to negotiable the instrument. The instrument may be wholly blank or incomplete in particular and in either case the holder has the authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one".
33. Under Section 20 of NI Act, a signed paper delivered to another person either wholly blank or in complete gave a prima facie permission to the holder in course to complete or to make it as a Negotiable Instrument.
34. Ex.B3 is the judgment and decree in A.S.No.14 of 2002, wherein, the prayer of injunction was denied to the present defendant. Ex.B1, B4 are insufficient to prove that consideration was not passed on the pronote. Except the defendant, no other witness was examined on the side of the defendant, to disprove the pronote, whereas, the signature in Ex.A1 was admitted by the plaintiff, by his recitals in the earlier suit and by his recitals in the written statement. Under Section 20 of the NI Act, a person, who delivers a signed paper is giving permission to the holder of the document, to 21 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008 convert it into a Negotiable Instrument. The presumption under Section 20 of the NI Act was not rebutted by the defendant. Hence, it is decided that pronote is genuine.
Issue No.III:-
35. On the side of the plaintiff, it is stated that in the pronote, the defendant has agreed to repay the loan amount with 24% interest and under Section 79 of NI Act, the plaintiff is entitled to receive the interest at the admitted rate, from the date of pronote till the date of realization and the trial Court has failed to consider the same while fixing the rate of interest. No appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the order of trial Judge, No cross objection was filed in this appeal. Hence, the prayer of the respondents is not maintainable.
36. In issue No.I, it is decided that the appellant failed to prove that no consideration was passed on the pronote. In issue No.II, it is decided that the pronote is genuine. For reasons stated in issue No.III, it is decided that there is no merit in the appeal.
22 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008
37. For the reasons discussed above, the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.9 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, dated 30.06.2007, is confirmed and the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs.
22.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Ls
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Kanyakumari at Nagercoil,
2.The V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
23 / 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008
R. THARANI, J.
Ls
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2008
22.04.2022
24 / 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis