9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the trial Court. 3. Bereft and niggard of details, the facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: 3.1. On 28.08.2006, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the said amount on demand, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, in order to discharge the loan, the defendant neither paid the principal nor the interest. In order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant is trying to alienate his properties, so the plaintiff has not served with notice on the defendant. The defendant is not an agriculturist. Hence, he is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and filed the present suit. Hence, the suit is not maintainable in law. 5. Based on the above said averments, the trial Court framed necessary issues. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3. and two documents are marked as Exs. A1 and A2. Similarly, on the side of the defendant, the defendant himself has examined as D.W.1 and three documents were marked as Exs. B1 to B3. 6. Having considered the materials placed before him, the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore came to the conclusion that the claim made by the plaintiff is not true and after concluding as above dismissed the suit with entirety. In the appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Cuddalore rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchased the neighbouring land, in order to take vengeance, the plaintiff had filed this false suit. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that the first Appellate Court after applying Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, correctly appreciated the case of the plaintiff and reversed the finding arrived at by the trial Court. The reasoning given by the Lower Appellate Court do not want any modification. 11. The submissions made by the counsels appearing on either side are considered. 12. It is not in dispute that the signature found in the pro-note is belongs to the defendant. In otherwise in relates to execution, during the time of trial, he had given evidence as, on the top of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or reduces to certainty some provision which was originally unascertained and a such void, or which may otherwise prejudice the party bound by the deed as originally executed. 15. Accordingly, applying the said observation with the case in hand, if the story put forth by the defendant is found to be correct, no doubt that the case instituted by the plaintiff falls under the category that after materially altered the pro-note, the suit has been filed. 16. In this context, whether the instrument appears to be altered, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the alteration is improperly made and the presumption in the case of the Negotiable Instruments is that the alteration was made subsequent to the issue of the instrument. 17. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
