LAWS(KER)-2020-10-141

RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. SEENA

Decided On October 12, 2020
RADHAKRISHNAN Appellant
V/S
Seena Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.230/2005 on the file of Additional Sub Judge, Kollam. He is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the court below allowing the respondent/plaintiff to recover the loan amount of Rs.3 lakhs with interest.

(2.) The parties stand in close relationship with each other. The respondent's case is that the appellant borrowed on two occasions an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.1,40,000/- on 30.7.2000 and on 20.7.2002 respectively. On 20.7.2002, the appellant executed Ext.A1 promissory note and it is stated that promissory note taken for the former payment of Rs.1,60,000/- was returned on the day. The appellant is stated to have paid interest for some time and when he defaulted payment, the suit was instituted after issuing Ext.A2 lawyer's notice.

(3.) Appellant's contention in the written statement is that he did not borrow any amount from the respondent. He denied execution of Ext.A1 document also. According to him, he happened to execute Ext.A1 which was a stamped blank paper on 11.1.2005 in Anchalumoodu Police Station under threat and coercion, following a complaint lodged by the respondent against him before the Police authorities. He contended that there was a money transaction for an amount of Rs.50,000/- between the respondent and appellant's employer one Anilkumar under whom he was working as a salesman in a paper-mart. The amount was paid to Sri.Anilkumar in the month of January, 1999, upon appellant introducing the borrower to the respondent. But Sri.Anilkumar for his own reasons was not in a position to return the amount and he left for Gulf. Therefore, the appellant at the insistence of respondent and others agreed to discharge the liability of Sri.Anilkumar on or before 31.12.2005. While that undertaking was in force, appellant was called to the Police Station and under threat, Ext.A1 blank document was executed. It is contended that the document is not supported by any consideration and therefore it is not enforceable against him.