IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.07.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL APPEAL SUIT NO.755 OF 2001 Muruganantham ..Appellant/Defendant Vs. Arivazhagan ..Respondent/Plaintiff Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2000 in O.S.No.24 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Karaikal. For Appellant : Ms.M.Rebecca For Mr.K.Balakrishnan For Respondent : No appearance J U D G M E N T The appellant/defendant has projected this appeal as against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.24 of 1999 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal. 2.The short facts of the plaint are as follows: The appellant/defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 18.5.1997 from the respondent/plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and has executed a pronote. Inspite of repeated demand made by the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant has not made any payment. Consequently, the respondent/plaintiff has issued an Advocate Notice dated 22.2.1999, 23.2.1999 claiming the amount. The appellant/defendant has sent a reply on 15.4.1999 with incorrect allegations. Hence, the suit is laid for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.37,500/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the plaint till date of payment and with costs. 3.The appellant/defendant has filed a written statement taking the pleas among other things that as a Government servant he has recommended for certain loans to other and he has never been a party to the following transactions and except for one instance of taking a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hand loan of Rs.7,000/- in the year 1997 or 1998 from one Rajamuthu of Kottucherry to meet out pressing legal expenses in connection with an expensive litigation, he signed a blank pronote and handed over the same to the Contractor-Rajamuthu, who is personally known to him for long time and on 22.2.1999 a demand notice has been issued to him claiming that he has borrowed monies from the respondent/plaintiff and demanding repayment and he approached the said Rajamuthu for return of the blank pronote since by the time the loan taken by the appellant from him has been discharged and since the debt has been discharged, Rajamuthu has been informed him that the pronote must have been destroyed, which he has taken to be true and by means of Advocates reply dated 15.4.1999 the appellant/ defendant has denied the borrowing and the execution of pronote from the respondent/plaintiff and further that he has mentioned about the signing of a blank pronote in favour of his friend Rajamuthu and that the calculation of the interest is wrong and has prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. 4.The trial Court, on the side of respondent/plaintiff witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 have been marked. On the side of appellant/defendant, D.W.1 and D.W.2 have been examined and no documents have been marked. 5.The trial Court altogether has framed 1 to 4 issues and on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, it has come to the conclusion that the appellant/ defendant has received a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 18.5.1997 and has executed the suit pronote and resultantly, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 6.The points that arise for determination are: 1.Whether the appellant/defendant has executed the suit pronote Ex.A.1 dated 18.5.1997 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff after receiving the consideration of Rs.30,000/-? 2.Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as claimed for? 7.Contentions, Discussions and Findings: According to the learned counsel for the appellant / defendant, the appellant/defendant has not executed any pronote in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and that the appellant never borrowed the alleged sum of Rs.30,000/- from the respondent/plaintiff and further that the trial Court should have taken note of the fact that even witness P.W.2 is not able to establish the genuiness of Ex.A.1 suit pronote and moreover, the trial Court has committed an error in appreciating the fact that the appellant/defendant does not know the respondent/plaintiff and it is not possible for the appellant to borrow money from the respondent and added further, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent/plaintiff has no capacity to advance the amount and further there is no entry in respondent/ plaintiff's Income Tax account for amounting the money to the appellant and also that the trial Court should not have believed the testimony of P.W.2 who says that he has accompanied the appellant/defendant at the time of the borrowing of the money and therefore, prays for allowing the appeal in the interest of justice. 8.This Court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and noticed the same. 9.It is the evidence of P.W.1 (respondent/plaintiff) that the appellant/defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from him on 18.5.1997 and agreed to pay interest at 12% per annum and has executed a suit pronote Ex.A.1 and one Aruldass has signed as a witness in Ex.A.1 and since the amount has not been mentioned in Ex.A.2 lawyer's notice dated 22.2.1999. He has issued another notice Ex.A.4 dated 23.2.1999 and Ex.A.6 is the letter of the appellant. 10.P.W.1 during his cross examination has specifically stated that Ex.A.1 suit pronote has been brought by the appellant/defendant himself fully filled and stamped and in his presence the appellant/defendant has signed on his stamp the painter by name Aruldass has singed as a witness in the pronote and he requested the said painter to sign as a witness for giving the money to the appellant and moreover, the appellant has promised the repayment of the amount within two months from the execution of the Ex.A.1 and he has seen the appellant and the Rajamuthu (Contractor) each other near the P.W.Office and added further, the appellant/ defendant has issued a letter-Ex.A.7 through a person to his shop and in the said letter he has asked for time for making payment. 11.P.W.2 in his evidence has deposed that he has signed as a witness in a suit pronote and that the appellant/ defendant borrowed three bundles of Rs.100/- from the respondent/plaintiff and after receiving the money, the appellant has signed in the pronote and that he has signed on the stamp and beneath the stamp in the pronote and he has signed as a witness and after the appellant/defendant has signed in the pronote. 12.It is pertinent to refer to the evidence of D.W.1 (appellant/defendant) to the effect that he has never borrowed the money from the respondent/plaintiff and that he has taken loans from his friend Rajamuthu two or three times and that the said Rajamuthu is a Government Contractor and that he has borrowed to the limit of Rs.5000/- from the said Rajamuthu and that he used to give Rajamuthu the pronotes in blank only with signature and that as on date he owes no money to the said Rajamuthu and generally he does not ask for return of the pronote since the siad Rajamuthu is his friend and in 1997 he has borrowed from Rajamuthu a sum of Rs.7,000/- in connection https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with a Court case and that he has repaid the loan and this borrowal has also been on a blank pronote signed by him, which has been repaid but he has not asked for the return of the pronote. 13.It is the further evidence of D.W.1 that he denies the signature of Muruganandam in the letter dated 13.7.1998 shown to him by the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff. 14.D.W.2 in his evidence has categorically stated that he used to borrow money from the respondent/plaintiff's brothers and thereafter, he used to borrow money from the respondent/plaintiff and that he has borrowed money for four or five years from the respondent/plaintiff in connection with his business and the maximum amount he has borrowed is Rs.20,000/- and that he has repaid the debts and further that a year ago the appellant has told him that he requires some money and urgently he has managed some amount and has given him Rs.7,000/- which has been repaid by the appellant and that the appellant has given him a blank promissory note signed on a stamp. Continuing further, D.W.2 has deposed that the appellant/defendant has not issued Ex.A.1 pronote to the respondent/plaintiff and to secure the loan of Rs.10,000/- he has given the respondent/plaintiff a blank cheque of UCO Bank and the blank EX.A.1 pronote and he has discharged the debt. 15.In Ex.A.1-pronote the signature of the appellant/ defendant is seen over the revenue stamp affixed thereto. Significantly in Ex.A.1 pronote at the end of the document the appellant signature is also seen. In Ex.A.1 pronote the witness Aruldass has signed. The recitals in Ex.A.1 are seen in Tamil vernacular. In the Ex.A.1 printed pronote seven lines have been initially left blank and later in the said blank portion the Tamil recitals are written/filled up. A reading of Ex.A.1 pronote dated 18.5.1997 shows that the appellant/defendant has executed the said document to in favour of the respondent/plaintiff after the passing off consideration of Rs.30,000/- taken as loan for urgent family expenses and the rate of interest agreed is at 12% per annum. 16.Generally speaking, the presumption in law is that a pronote is supported by due consideration mentioned in pronote. However, this presumption is a rebuttable one. It is for the appellant/defendant to establish to the subjective satisfaction of this Court that he has not received any consideration under Ex.A.1 pronote and further has not executed the said document. Moreover, the circumstances relied on by the appellant in regard to the stand taken by the appellant in the written statement must be proved by him in the manner known to law. At this stage, Ex.A.7 letter dated 13.7.1998 assumes significance. This document is said to have been given to the respondent/ plaintiff (P.W.1) by the appellant/defendant through a person to the respondent/plaintiff when the latter has been in his shop. The recitals in Tamil in Ex.A.7 letter (addressed to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent/plaintiff by the appellant/ defendant) speaks of the fact that the appellant is in trying circumstances and he is making his endeavour night and day to repay the loan obtained by him from the respondent/plaintiff and therefore, has prayed for time to make repayment of the amount. Though the appellant/defendant as D.W.1 has denied his signature in Ex.A.7. Indeed, under Section 73 of the Evidence Act a Court of law is entitled to compare the disputed signature of an individual seen in documents. The comparison of disputed signature with its own eyes can be done by a Court with that of a proved/admitted signature of a person. However, a Court of law need not get an expert opinion in each and every case though it ought to be slow in venturing on an opinion on the basis of comparison. On a comparison of signatures of Muruganandam has seen in Ex.A.1 pronote i.e. over the revenue stamp and at the end of the pronote with that of signature of said Muruganandam found in Ex.A.7 letter dated 13.7.1998 leads this Court unhesitatingly to come to the inevitable conclusion that the signature of Muruganandam seen in Ex.A.7 letter is only that of the appellant/defendant, in the considered opinion of this Court. In short, Ex.A.7 recitals unerringly point out that the appellant/defendant has sought for few days for extension of time to make payment to the respondent/plaintiff. 17.In the present case on hand, the witness of Ex.A.1 pronote has been examined as P.W.2 and he has clearly stated that the appellant/defendant at the time of receipt of money of 3 bundles of Rs.100/- from the respondent/plaintiff has signed over the revenue stamp in the pronote and also at the end of the pronote. The evidence of P.W.2 is a cogent, convincing one, worthy of credence and the same is accepted by this Court. Furthermore, P.W.1 (respondent/plaintiff) in his evidence has also spoken about the factum of lending the amount stated in suit pronote to the appellant/defendant. As a matter of fact, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are quite natural and a reliable one. In the instant case on hand, the respondent/plaintiff has established his burden of proving that the pronote has been executed by the appellant/ defendant. However, the appellant/defendant has not adduced satisfactory and acceptable evidence that the pronote has not been supported by consideration. 18.Suffice it for this Court to point out that on an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record especially taking into account of the fact that Ex.A.7 letter dated 13.2.1998 is not in favour of the appellant/defendant and per contra, the same is in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and apart from this, the signature of P.Muruganandam found in Ex.A.7 document is clearly that of the appellant/defendant in the considered opinion of this Court based on the comparison of the said signature with that of the signature found in Ex.A.1 over the revenue stamp and resultantly, this Court comes to the inevitable conclusion that Ex.A.1 suit pronote is supported by due consideration and the same has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ executed by the appellant/defendant to and in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff and the same is a true and valid one and consequently, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. 19.In fine, the Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 15.11.2000 are affirmed by this Court. Consequently, there shall be no order as to costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sgl To 1. The Additional District Judge, Karaikal. 2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 c.c. to Mr. K. Balakrishnan, Advocate. S.R.No.29369. A.S.No.755 of 2001 KA (CO) GSK 04.08.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/