VIJAYALAKSHMI, T.K. VENKATESH Vs. MRS. ELIZABETH, W/O MR. A. MARIYA ASUL AND SRI P. SOLIAPPAN, S/O V. PARMASHIVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.8.2007 passed by the Court of the XXV; Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore (CCh -20) in O.S. No. 15585/01.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the Respondent No. 1 claims to have given a hand loan of Rs. 1 lakh to the Appellant on 15.5.1998. The Appellant is said to have given an on demand promissory note in favour of the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 2 is said to have prepared the on demand promissory note. The Respondent No. 1 claims to have given the hand loan for the business of the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 jointly. When the first Respondent's endeavours to recover the said sum of Rs. 1 lakh on the issuance of the legal notice did net lead her anywhere, she filed the suit for recovery against the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 (the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively). The Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 filed a common written statement denying the allegations that they have received the hand loan of Rs. 1 lakh and denying the execution of the on demand promissory note. It is their defence that they were the subscribers of the chit being run by the Respondent No. 1. It is their further defence that the on demand promissory note was given only as a security for the chit amount, which they took in a particular month. The Respondent No. 1 had assured that the said promissory note would be returned to them as soon as the chit amount was paid. The Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 were very emphatic that the issuance of the on demand promissory note was only in connection with chit transaction Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Defendants being the partners have borrowed a hand loan of Rs. 1 Lakh from heron 15.05.1998 as alleged? 2. Whether the Defendants prove that their signatures were obtained on the blank D.P. Note and the same was given as a collateral security as alleged in Para No. 8 of the Written Statement?

(3.) WHAT Decreed or Order? 3. On behalf of the Respondent No. 1, she herself and her neighbour were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively marking 4 documents in Exhibit 'P' series. The Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 were examined as DW1 and DW2 respectively marking 5 documents at Ex.D1 to Ex.D5. Based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed on the record of the Trial Court, the Trial Court decreed the suit as against the Appellant for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. It dismissed the suit as against the Respondent No. 2 (the Defendant No. 2) imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/ - on the Respondent No. 1 for unnecessarily arraigning him as a Defendant to the suit proceedings. 4. Sri Vishnu Hegde, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that no material whatsoever is placed in support of the first Respondent's claim that the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 jointly borrowed the amounts. He submits that the on demand promissory note (Ex.P1) does not bear the signature of the Appellant. He submits that the Appellant signs only in Tamil and not in English. He brings to my notice that some columns in the on demand promissory note are left blank. On the consideration receipt at Ex.P2 it is Sri Vishnu Hegde's submission that it does not even bear the signature of the witnesses As Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are incomplete in many respects and even when the Respondent No. 1 Plaintiff has not proven that