P SIVASUBRAMANIAN Vs. N KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.1995 made in O.S. No. 219 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode.

(2.) THE appellants herein were the defendants before the trial Court. As per the case of the respondent/plaintiff on 15.05.1986, the first appellant herein as proprietor of the 2nd appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent and executed the suit promissory note, Ex.A1, promising him to re-pay the same with interest at the rate of 7 paise for Rs.100/-per day and that interest was paid by him upto 31.03.1989 and from 01.04.1989 onwards he was paying the interest at the rate of 6%. On 27.03.1989, the first appellant paid a sum of Rs.6,300/- and made an endorsement on the back side of the promissory note Ex.A1. Subsequently, as the appellants did not pay any amount towards the principal or interest, the respondent issued a legal notice for which there was no reply from the appellant. Hence, the suit was filed by the respondent.

(3.) HERE in the instant case, the defence raised by the appellants/defendants is that the first appellant had never received any amount from the respondent. However, he has not disputed his signature and the seal of his proprietary concern, affixed on the revenue stamp of the suit promissory note, Ex.A1. It is, as per law, sufficient for the execution of the suit promissory note for the value mentioned therein not exceeding the amount covered by the stamps affixed therein. As contended by Mr.R.Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent that as per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, it is not open to the appellant after having signed the Negotiable Instrument and received the consideration, to take a stand that the amount was obtained only from the elder brother of the respondent and handed over only three signed blank pronotes. It is not in dispute that the first appellant has been the proprietor of his sole trading concern and the second appellant is also an Income tax Assessee and therefore there could be no possibility for him in signing in three blank promissory notes without knowing the consequence and handing over three signed blank promissory note to the brother of the respondent, as there is every possibility of the person who gets the same, for filling up any amount and claim the same from the appellants. Being a businessman the first appellant could not have handed over the signed promissory notes in blank and that too, after affixing the seal of his sole trading concern.