Madras High Court
Mrs.K.P.Krishnaveni vs Dr.K.Parameswaran on 5 December, 2019
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
A.S.No.398 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-12-2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
A.S.No.398 of 2014
Mrs.K.P.Krishnaveni .. Appellant/Defendant
vs.
Dr.K.Parameswaran .. Respondent/Plaintiff
Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014 made in
O.S.No.239 of 2010 on the file of the learned V Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Gunalan
For Respondent : Mr.V.Bhiman for
M/s.Sampathkumar Associates.
JUDGMENT
The Appeal Suit on hand is filed by the appellant/defendant to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014 passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in 1/12 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.398 of 2014 O.S.No.239 of 2010.
2. The defendant is the appellant and the plaintiff is the respondent in the appeal suit.
3. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of money with future interest.
4. The facts in nutshell, as narrated by the appellant/ defendant, are that on 22.04.2007, the appellant/defendant borrowed from the respondent/plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- and in consideration thereof executed a promissory note dated 22.04.2007 for Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The original promissory note was produced in the criminal case filed in C.C.No.486 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi.
5. The said criminal proceedings, at the time of institution of the civil suit, was pending. Thus, the respondent/plaintiff produced a xerox copy of the promissory note and undertakes to summon the original at the time of hearing of the suit. The appellant/defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. After execution 2/12 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.398 of 2014 of the pro-note, the appellant/defendant failed to pay either the interest or the principal. The appellant/defendant visited the respondent/plaintiff on 10.11.2008 and issued a cheque for Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of the respondent/plaintiff dated 15.11.2008 drawn on ICICI Bank, Pollachi bearing Cheque No.946800 and the said cheque was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement stating 'payment stopped by drawee'. Thus, the respondent/plaintiff had instituted the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.486 of 2008.
6. The respondent /plaintiff had stated that the appellant/defendant had not made any payment towards interest or principal and thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff made several demands and issued a legal notice on 22.11.2008 and the appellant/defendant sent a reply on 12.12.2008 putting forward some false and untenable grounds. Thus, the respondent/plaintiff was constrained to file the civil suit for recovery of the amount with interest based on the promissory note executed by the appellant/defendant.
7. In the written statement, the appellant/defendant had denied the entire averments in toto. The case of the appellant/ 3/12 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.398 of 2014 defendant was that she did not have any transaction with the respondent/plaintiff at all. She never borrowed any amount executed in the suit promissory note. It is contended that she borrowed some loan amount from one Mr.Kuppusamy of Aliyar village during the year 2003. For the said loan, she handed over so many documents like blank cheques, blank stamped pro-notes containing her signatures and her husband signature and also the signed but unfilled stamp papers.
8. It is contended that in the year 2006, the appellant/ defendant and her husband repaid the loan and received back the documents and returned to their home. At that time, the said documents were found lost in their car which was stopped at Pollachi Bus Stand. Under those circumstances, the appellant/defendant was unable to produce any of those documents and it was contended that the suit itself was vexatious.
9. The Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:-
“ (i) Whether the suit pro-note is true and binding upon the defendant ?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 4/12 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.398 of 2014 the suit claim ?
(iii) On what other relief, if any, is he entitled ?”
10. During the discussions, the Trial Court examined the evidences of PW-1, the respondent/plaintiff himself as well as marked the documents as Exs.A-1 to A-12. The Attester of the promissory note one Dr.Jegan was examined as PW-2. The appellant/defendant herself was examined as DW-1 and her husband one Mr.Palanisamy was examined as DW-2. Their friend one Mr.Kuppusamy was examined as DW-4 and one Mr.Arumugam was examined as DW-3 and one Mr.Krishnamurthy was examined as DW-5 and one Mr.Akthar was examined as DW-6 and Exs.B-1 to B-19 were marked as documents and Exs.X-1 to X-4 were also marked as Court documents.
11. It is pertinent to note that the appellant/defendant did not deny her signatures found in the suit promissory note. The appellant/ defendant signed one on the stamp and another one below the stamp. Thus, the Trial Court arrived a conclusion that the suit promissory note contained the signature of the appellant/defendant twice.
5/12 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.398 of 2014
12. This being the factual facts found by the Trial Court with reference to the promissory note filed by the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant all along contended that she lost the unfilled promissory note containing her signature found only on the stamp, but by admission of the signatures, the execution of the promissory note was proved. The PW-2, a Doctor by profession, clearly stated about the execution and passing of consideration.
13. With reference to the promissory note, the Trial Court further found that in order to prove Ex.A-1, the respondent/plaintiff marked the certified copy of the promissory note and xerox copy of the promissory note and the original was admittedly filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The appellant/defendant did not deny her signature found in the promissory note in two places. The Attester of the promissory note one Dr.Jegan was examined as PW-2 also deposed regarding the execution of the promissory note and the transactions.
14. The Trial Court found that the evidence of Dr.Jegan, PW-2, was found natural. Moreover, the promissory note was written by PW-2 and he signed as a scribe and Attester of the document. Thus, 6/12 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.398 of 2014 the execution of the promissory note as well as passing of consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- to the appellant/defendant was established.
15. This apart, the respondent/plaintiff proved that he is the Income Tax Assessee and informed the Tax Authorities about the loan. The Income Tax Return was marked by him as Ex.A-12 and the same was also marked through Income Tax Officer DW-5 as Ex.X-1. Therefore, from the oral evidence, it was proved that Ex.A-1 promissory note was a valid document.
16. It is pertinent to note that no cross-examination was done that blank promissory note was subsequently filled up and converted into suit promissory note. Thus, the findings of the Trial Court is unambiguous with reference to the promissory note signed by the appellant/defendant as well as the admission made regarding the signature.
17. PW-2 Doctor evidence was found to be natural and he was the Attester and formed monetary transactions and therefore, the Trial Court arrived a conclusion that the execution of the promissory 7/12 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.398 of 2014 note was proved in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The Trial Court cogently considered these factors with reference to the documents marked by the parties to the suit as well as the evidences deposed by the witnesses.
18. With reference to the contention of the appellant/ defendant that she lost the unsigned promissory note and other documents, the Trial Court arrived a conclusion that the Court did not believe the version of the appellant/defendant that she lost the cheque and other document, as stated by her, on 27.11.2006, but the Trial Court took notice of the fact that the said cheque was already referred to in 2006 itself. The cheque cannot be given to discharge the suit promissory note. Since already in 2006 itself, the appellant/defendant anticipated some kind of dispute regarding the genuine fact regarding the issuance of cheque to discharge the loan is not proved rather than it is proved.
19. This being the categorical findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error apparent or perversity in respect of the findings of the Trial Court with reference to the documents and the evidences placed before the Court. The Trial Court 8/12 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.398 of 2014 finally analyse and weigh the evidence and the respondent/plaintiff is a Doctor and is having income through agriculture and he is an Income Tax Assessee.
20. The appellant/defendant is well educated and is holding a decent position in Society as a School Correspondent, the appellant/defendant did not attribute any motive for the respondent/ plaintiff to institute such a civil suit for recovery of money and the appellant/defendant failed to establish any such ill motive or otherwise for the purpose of instituting such suit by filling up blank promissory note or otherwise. Contrarily, the respondent/plaintiff had cogently established his case through documents as well as evidences. The deposition of PW-2 is vital and the reliance placed by the Trial Court is justified and there is no perversity as such.
21. This being the factum established by the respective parties before the Trial Court, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit and there is no infirmity. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in O.S. No.239 of 2010 dated 07.04.2014 is confirmed and the present 9/12 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.398 of 2014 Appeal Suit stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
05-12-2019 Index : Yes/No. Internet: Yes/No. Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Svn 10/12 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.398 of 2014 To The V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
11/12 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.398 of 2014 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn A.S. No.398 of 2014 05-12-2019 12/12 http://www.judis.nic.in