H MAREGOWDA Vs. THIPPAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these civil revision petitions, the decree of the trial court refusing the claim of the plaintiff based on a promissory note is challenged. The facts in all the cases are similar. Therefore, this common judgment is delivered as has been done in the suits by the trial Court.

(2.) THREE suits were filed based on promissory note. S. C. 313/93 and 314/93 were filed by one Maregouda; S. C. 319/3 was filed by one Eramma, his wife. The defendants in all the three suits are common. The case of the plaintiff in S. C. 313/93 is that on 12-11-87, the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for agricultural expenses and executed the promissory note agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 24% p. a. In S. C. 314/97, the date of the promissory note is 3-11-1987; the amount is the same. In S. C. 319/93, the promissory note was for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and the date is 2-11-1987. In respect of the three promissory notes, notice of demand was made and an interim reply followed by final reply was given by the defendants denying their liability.

(3.) THE trial Court framed as many as eight points for determination and holding that the plaintiffs have not proved execution of the promissory notes and the necessity of the defendants to prove that no consideration was passed under the promissory notes, the suits were ultimately dismissed.