MARIAM GEORGE Vs. S JESWINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties would be referred to in the same rank assigned to them before the Court below. The unsuccessful plaintiff in OS No. 1350/1996 is before this Court in this appeal. The plaintiff was before the Court below in a suit seeking for a judgment and decree against the defendant for Rs. 92,500/- with current interest at 18% p. a. from the date of the suit till the date of realisation and for costs. The case of plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that the plaintiff knows the defendant for the last about 20 years. Both of them are working in M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore. According to the plaintiff, during March 1993, the defendant expressed certain serious domestic financial problems and requested the plaintiff to help her by lending Rs. 60,000/-as temporary loan. The plaintiff, though did not have sufficient funds with her, borrowed some amount from her friends and close relatives and made over rs. 60,000/- to the defendant on 21-3-1993. The defendant is said to have expressed that the same would be returned along with interest within six months. Since the plaintiff had borrowed from her friends and relatives, insisted the defendant that the said amount be repaid along with interest of 1. 5% per mensum. The defendant on agreeing to the same executed an on demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant is said to have also signed the consideration receipt for having received rs. 60,000/- on 21-3-1993. The said amount is said to have been received from the defendant in the presence of Sri. K. Ramasuryan who is the attestor and scribe to the said documents. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the defendant did not repay the amount after six months and as such on the plaintiff demanding the said amount, the defendant sought for some more time indicating that her problems were not yet over. Since the defendant did not make any payment, the plaintiff approached the defendant once again in October 1994 and requested for repayment. The defendant is said to have sought for time till april 1995 to clear all the dues by stating that she would apply for provident fund loan and would be getting loan in April 1995. When the plaintiff again approached the defendant in April 1995, the defendant is said to have adapted a hostile attitude and at that stage the plaintiff on enquiry came to know that the defendant had borrowed all types of loan from the office also. Hence the plaintiff got issued a notice dated 3-11-1995 through the Advocate. Since the amount was not paid, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the principal amount of Rs. 6,0000/-and the accrued interest at 18% per annum from 21-3-1993 till the date of suit. The notice charges is also claimed.

(2.) THE defendant on being notified of the suit appeared and filed detailed written statement. The defendant at the outset has denied the entire claim put forth by the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendant has therefore contended that the plaintiff is to be put to strict proof of the averments contained in the plaint. Contending so, the defendant has proceeded further to aver that the actual fact is that the plaintiff is running a chit business on monthly instalment basis and in such chit group the defendant is a member. It is further contended that the chit amount being Rs. 4,0000/- was to be paid in 40 monthly installments at rs. 1,000/- per month by distributing the discount in the bid amount among the Chit members. This chit group was started according to the defendant on 10-4-1991 in which the defendant has two chits and liable to pay Rs. 2,000/-per month subject to discount in bidding. The said chit is said to have ended on 10-7-1994. The defendant has further contended that she was the successful bidder on the chit auction conducted on 10-22-1992 and 10-6-1992 by having bid at a discount of Rs. 18,000/- and 16,000/- respectively. Thereafter the plaintiff had paid the chit amounts of Rs. 22,000/-and 24,000/- respectively to the defendant. It is therefore contended by the defendant that before making payment in respect of two chit amounts, the plaintiff had obtained signature of the defendant on four blank promissory notes and consideration receipt on the ground that the same was required for collateral security purpose and also to ensure that the defendant continues to pay the future chit amounts regularly. The defendant therefore, contends that believing in the plaintiff, the defendant affixed her signatures as stated and further submits that till the completion of the two chits up to and inclusive of 10-7-1994, the defendant has paid all the amounts even after the successful bidding. It is further contended by the defendant that after clearing of the chit payments, the defendant requested the plaintiff to return the four signed blank on demand promissory notes and consideration receipt executed by the defendant. But the plaintiff kept on postponing the same on some pretext or the other. The defendant however did not bother much since the plaintiff was her colleague and had confidence that the plaintiff would not misuse the same. It is alleged by the defendant that instead of returning the said four promissory notes and consideration receipt, the plaintiff has now misused the same with an intention to cheat the defendant and has fraudulently filled up the promissory note by forging the same. The defendant therefore contends that she is not due any amount to the plaintiff.

(3.) THE Court below considering the rival contentions putforth in their respective pleadings framed as many as five issues for its consideration which read as hereunder :