JANARDHANAN Vs. T A ANEEFA RAWTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for realisation of money is the appellant in this appeal. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 21,000/- from him on 30.1.1988 agreeing to pay interest at 2% per month. A document was executed in the name of the plaintiff on that day. The defendant had agreed to pay the amount within three years. On 28.1.1991 the defendant paid Rs.10/- to the plaintiff and got endorsement on the document. Since no other amount was paid, though demanded several times and notice through Advocate was issued, the suit was filed in 1994.

(2.) In the written statement, the defendant contended that the document relied on by the plaintiff is not admissible in evidence. He however admitted that he borrowed Rs.21,000/- on 30.1.1998 and executed a document. Though the document showed 2% interest per month, the actual interest agreed was 7 1/2% per month. There was no payment of Rs.10/- on 28.1.1991 and no endorsement was made as contended by the plaintiff. No amount was due to the plaintiff. The suit is barred by limitation.

(3.) Ext.A1 is the agreement mentioned in the plaint. The Trial Court found that Ext.A1 can be considered as a pronote payable otherwise than on demand and stamp duty paid was insufficient. The Trial Court also found that the suit could be treated as one filed on the basis of the original consideration and since Ext.A1(a) endorsement on 28.1.1991 was found to be by the defendant, it was held that the suit was not barred by limitation. The Trial Court further found that the plea of discharge made by the defendant is not established and the suit was decreed for an amount of Rs.51,222/- with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.21,000/- from the date of the suit till date of decree at 6% thereafter till date of realisation.