RANGANATHAN ALIAS PANDURANGA Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: The present Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in A.S.No.46 of 1997 dated 17.04.1998 preferred against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Munsif of Tindivanam in O.S.No.940 of 1995 dated 26.02.1997.) 1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.04.1998 in A.S.No.46 of 1997 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.1997 in O.S.No.940 of 1995 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Tindivanam.

(2.) THE 1st Appellate Court, while allowing the A.S.No.46 of 1997 on 17.04.1998, has, among other things opined that while perusing Ex.B.1 Agreement receipt dated 19.09.1990, it is evident that the pronote has been executed by the Defendants (Respondents) in favour of the Plaintiff (Appellant). Since, the nine months old child Manimegalai's mother has met with an untimely death, for the maintenance of the child and for her expenses as per resolution of Panchayatdars, executed the same for Rs.20,000/- and in that way, the suit pronote is not supported by consideration and based on humanitarian approach and also considering the child's interest, as admitted by the Respondents/Defendants, the same has been written, for doubling the same, which transpires from the evidence of two sides and through documents. THE Respondents/Defendants are not liable to pay the suit pronote amount to the Appellant/Plaintiff and resultantly, allowed the Appeal without costs, by setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court passed in the main suit and resultantly, dismissed the suit.

(3.) AT the time of Admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following substantial question of Law: ?Whether the lower Appellate Court is right holding that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration, overlooking the statutory presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act especially when the Defendants admitted the execution of the suit promissory note??