Namasivayam vs K. Munian

M. Jaichandren, J.—This Second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the First appellate Court, dated 29.01.2007,

made in A.S. No. 72 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated

25.10.2005, made in O.S. No. 1025 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai.

The defendant in the suit, in O.S. No. 1025 of 2004, is the appellant in the present second appeal and the plaintiff in the said suit is the

respondent herein. The plaintiff had filed the suit praying for the relief of recovery of money, based on a promissory note, dated 06.01.2003, along

with the interest thereon and for costs.

The suit had been filed for recovering a sum of Rs. 40,370/- being the principal amount and for the interest on the said amount at 12% per

annum. It had been stated that the defendant in the suit had executed the promissory note, dated 06.01.2003, in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.

33,000/-, payable with interest at 12% per annum. It had been stated that the said sum had been borrowed by the defendant, from the plaintiff, for

his family expenses, having executed a promissory note, on 06.01.2003, agreeing to repay the said amount, with interest at 12% per annum.

Inspite of the oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant had not repaid the amount. Therefore, the plaintiff had issued a lawyer''s notice,

dated 10.07.2004. After having received the said notice, the defendant had issued a reply notice, on 14.07.2004, denying the claims made by the

plaintiff. In such circumstances, the plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S. No. 1025 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, it had been stated that the claims made by the plaintiff are false and frivolous. It had

been stated that the defendant had not executed the suit promissory note and that he had not borrowed the sum of Rs. 33,000/-, on 06.01.2003,

from the plaintiff. The defendant had further stated that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 17,000/- only, and had handed over two unfilled signed

promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, on 24.04.2002. Further, the defendant had repaid a sum of Rs. 4,000/-, on 15.06.2002 and Rs.

10,000/-, on 29.05.2003. The plaintiff had also taken a cheque from the defendant for a sum of Rs. 29,000/-. The plaintiff had assured that after

encashing the cheque, he would return the promissory notes. However, he had failed to return the bonds, even after encashing the cheque. He had

again demanded a sum of Rs. 33,000/-,even after the entire amount due from the defendant had been paid. Since, the suit filed by the plaintiff was

false, concocted and based on a forged promissory note, it is liable to be dismissed.

Based on the averments made on behalf of the plaintiff, as well as the defendant, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for its

consideration.

(i) Whether the suit promissory note is a forged one as contended by the defendant in Paragraph 4 of the written statement?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim?

(iii) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled to?

On the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses had been examined, as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Exhibits A1 to A3 had been marked. On the side of

defendant, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined, as witnesses and no documents had been marked on his behalf.

The trial Court had noted that the plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1. P.W.2, who is the attestor of the promissory note, marked as Ex.A1,

had been examined on behalf of the plaintiff, before the trial Court. The defendant had examined himself as D.W.1 and an attestor of the

promissory note had been examined as D.W.2. The trial Court had found that the evidence of D.W.2 did not, in any way, establish the contentions

of the defendant.

Based on the evidence available on record, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the defendant had not established his claim that the

promissory note, dated 06.01.2003, marked as Ex.A1, had been forged for the purpose of the filing of the suit. The defendant had not been been

in a position to show that the promissory note was a forged one, nor was he in a position to establish his claim that the promissory note had been

given in respect of the earlier money transaction with the plaintiff. Hence, the trial Court had decreed the suit, as prayed for by the plaintiff, by its

judgement and decree, dated 25.10.2005, made in O.S. No. 1025 of 2004.

Aggrieved by the Judgement and decree of the trial Court, dated 25.10.2005, the defendant had filed an appeal, in A.S. No. 72 of 2006, on the

file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai. The Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai, had framed the following points for

consideration.

1) Whether the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document?

2) Whether the Appeal deserves to be allowed?

In the oral evidence adduced by P.W.1, the plaintiff and P.W.2, who is one of the attestors of the promissory note, marked as Ex.A1, it has

been stated that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 33,000/-, on 06.01.2003, on executing the said promissory note. It had been noted that

the defendant had examined himself as D.W.1 and one Balaraman, who is one of the attestors of promissory note, had been examined as D.W.2.

In the evidence of D.W.2, it had been stated that he had affixed his signature on the promissory note at the request of the plaintiff, eventhough he

had not known who the defendant was. Further, the First Appellate Court had found that, when the defendant had claimed that he had given two

unfilled and signed promissory notes to the plaintiff in relation to the earlier money transaction, the allegation of the defendant that the plaintiff had

forged the promissory note, marked as Ex.A1, cannot be accepted. Further, on comparing the signatures of the defendant, the First Appellate

Court, had come to the conclusion that the claims made by the defendant cannot be held to be correct and true. In such circumstances, the First

Appellate Court had confirmed the findings of the trial Court, by its Judgment and decree, dated 29.01.2007, made in A.S. No. 72 of 2006.

Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, dated 29.01.2007, the defendant in the suit, who was the appellant in the

First Appellate Court had filed the present second Appeal before this Court raising the following questions as substantial questions of law:

a) Whether the first appellate Court is correct in law in not accepting the entire evidence of D.W.2 who is the attesting witness and who denies the

execution of Ex.P1 contrary to the provisions of Evidence Act?

b) Is not the Appellate Court is wrong in law in dismissing the appeal in the absence of scribe as witness to prove the execution when one of the

attesting witness denies the execution of Ex.P1 as mandated u/s 67 of the Indian Evidence Act?

c) Is not the Appellate Court is wrong in law in placing the burden of proving the case upon the shoulder of the defendant by stating that the

defendant failed to prove that the suit promissory note Ex.P1 is forged one?

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that both the Courts below had failed to appreciate the evidence

available on record in favour of the appellant. The Courts below had failed to note that the appellant had not executed the promissory note, as

alleged by the plaintiff, in the suit, who is the respondent in the second Appeal. Both the Courts below ought to have noted that the promissory

note, dated 06.01.2003, alleged to have been signed by the appellant, is a forged document. The Courts below ought to have held, based on the

evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant, that he had not borrowed the sum of Rs. 33,000/- ,based on the promissory note, dated

06.01.2003, marked as Ex.A1, as alleged by the plaintiff. The Courts below ought to have noted that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.

17,000/- only, from the plaintiff and he had handed over two unfilled promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, on 24.04.2002 and that the

appellant had repaid a sum of Rs. 4,000/- and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 15.06.2002 and 29.05.2003, respectively. Thereafter, the appellant had

been compelled to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/-and the respondent had also taken a cheque for Rs. 29,000/-, from the appellant and after encashing

the the said cheque, the respondent had filed the suit making illegal demands.

It had also been stated that the Courts below had failed to properly appreciate the evidence of D.W.2, who is one of the attestors of the

promissory note, dated 06.01.2003, marked as Ex.A1. When it is the duty of the respondent in the second Appeal, who was the plaintiff in the

suit, to prove his case, the Courts below had erroneously shifted the burden on the defendant in the suit, who is the appellant in the present Second

Appeal, to disprove the execution of the promissory note, marked as Ex.A1. Further, the Courts below had erred by not adverting to Section 67

of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that the respondent had not proved his case. Further, the scribe of the document, marked as Ex.A1, had not

been examined, when there was a specific contention raised by the appellant that he had executed two promissory notes, on 24.04.2002, in favour

of the respondent and that one of the promissory notes had been misused by the respondent in filing the suit.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions to substantiate his

claim that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case, when the defendant denies his signature in the promissory note.

(i) Central Bank of India v. Antony Hardware Mart. 2006 (3) CTC 39

(ii) Tiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal and Anr. (2008) 2 MLJ 1115

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that, in the reply notice sent on behalf of the appellant,

the borrowing of the money had been accepted. The Courts below had come to their conclusions stating that the allegation of the appellant that the

promissory note, dated 06.01.2003, marked as Ex.A1, had been forged had not been substantiated by sufficient evidence. Further, one of the

attesting witnesses of the document, marked as Ex.A1, had supported the case of the respondent. D.W.2, examined on behalf of the appellant had

stated, during his evidence, that he did not know the appellant. There was no police complaint stating that the respondent and his men had

compelled the appellant to sign the promissory note. The Courts below had also found, on comparing the signatures of the appellant, that they are

similar in nature. The Courts below had also found that there would have been no necessity for the respondent to forge the promissory note, in

view of the claim of the appellant that he had already given two unfilled signed promissory notes, on 24.04.2002, to the respondent, with regard to

certain earlier money transaction. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had also stated that the questions of law framed by

the appellant, in the Second Appeal, are not substantial questions of law. He had relied on the following decision in support of his contentions.

Krishnan Vs. Backiam and Another,

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records

available, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of

the Courts below. Both the Courts below, based on the evidence available on record, had come to the conclusion that the signature on the

promissory note, dated 06.01.2003, marked as Ex.A1, is that of the appellant and that the allegation that the promissory note had been forged by

the respondent had not been substantiated by the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

It had also been noted that the appellant had not asked for an expert opinion, eventhough he had contended that his signature in the promissory

note, dated 06.01.2003 had been forged. Since, there were certain contradictions in the deposition of D.W.2, examined on behalf of the appellant,

the Courts below had not believed his version, with regard to the document, marked as Ex.A1. Eventhough the appellant had claimed that the

promissory note was a forged document he has been in a position to prove his claim, with sufficient evidence. As such, it cannot be said that the

findings of the Courts below are erroneous and invalid. Further, no substantial questions of law had arisen for the consideration of this Court in the

present Second Appeal. In such circumstances, it is clear that the Second Appeal is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.