The above Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree, dated 24.02.1995 made in A.S.No.65 of 1994 on the file of the District Court, Dindigul, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.06.1993 made in O.S.No.19 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul.
2.Parties will be referred to as arrayed in the Original Suit.
3.The plaintiff in O.S.No.19 of 1991 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, is the appellant. The suit has been laid on a promissory note, dated 27.01.1988 (Ex.A.3). The plaintiff/appellant claimed that the respondent borrowed Rs.10,000/- from her and executed the suit promissory note. One Karuppiah had signed in the promissory note as a witness. P.W.3 Perumal Gounder signed as scribe. The plaintiff sent a notice calling upon the respondent to pay the amount covered under the promissory note with interest. Thereafter she has filed the suit.
4.The case of the defendant is that he borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the husband of the appellant and executed a promissory note in his favour. At the time of the execution of the promissory note in favour of the husband of the appellant, the husband of the appellant obtained the signature of the defendant in a unfilled promissory note and he used it to his advantage, he filled in the blank promissory note and filed the present suit in the name of his wife.
5.The present suit and the suit on a promissory note filed by the husband of the appellant in O.S.No.470/1990 were tried together and disposed of by a common Judgment. The suit filed by the husband of the appellant was decreed. The suit filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that she failed to prove the execution of the promissory note. The Trial Court has also held that the defendant has not received Rs.10,000/- on 27.01.1988 as claimed by the appellant.
6.Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court, the plaintiff has approached the first appellate court in A.S.No.65/1994 on the file of Principal District Judge, Dindigul. The first appellate court after analysing the materials on record confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Thereafter the plaintiff /appellant approached this court by way of this Second Appeal.
7.At the time of admission of the above Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law arose for consideration:-
?1) Whether the defendant has discharged the burden cast on him that the suit pronote is not supported by consideration especially when he has admitted his signature in the suit promissory note?
2) Whether the defendant has rebutted the presumption under sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and substantiated his case?? Points:-
8.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit inasmuch as the defendant admitted his signature in the suit promissory note. He would also submit that the courts below failed to draw an inference that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration.
9.The learned counsel for the defendant would submit that both the Courts below have correctly held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the execution of the promissory note.
10.It is seen from the written statement of the defendant that he has not admitted the execution of the promissory note. His specific case is that at the time of the execution of the promissory note in favour of the husband of the present appellant, he obtained his signature on a blank promissory note and later he filled in the blank promissory note and filed the suit in the name of his wife.
11.In N. Ethirajulu Naidu v. K.R. Chinnikrishnan Chettiar, (A.I.R 1975 Madras 333), it has been held thus: The execution of a document implies intelligent and conscious appreciation of the contents thereof and the facts connected therewith; 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 of Ex. A-1. The 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.
12.In the light of the said decision, admission of signature in the promissory note alone is not sufficient to hold that the defendant has admitted the execution of suit promissory note and it is for the plaintiff to prove the execution of the promissory note. The defendant herein specifically denied the execution of the promissory note. Both the courts below, after analysing the evidence have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved the execution of promissory note. These are all findings of fact and there is no ground for interfering with the appreciation of evidence.
13.The question of drawing presumption that the promissory note is supported by consideration will arise only after proof of execution of the promissory note. As the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of the promissory note, it cannot be said that the courts below failed to draw inference in terms of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the submission of the appellant that the courts below have failed to draw a presumption that the promissory note is supported by consideration, cannot be accepted.
14.In the result, the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. The substantial questions of law raised in this second appeal are answered accordingly against the appellant. This Second appeal is dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The District Judge, Dindigul.
2.The Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul..