NOBLE FINANCE Vs. OMANA SHANMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.760 of 1990, on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Kottayam is the appellant. The suit was filed by the appellant for realisation of money on the basis of Ext.A1 promissory note allegedly executed by Shanmugham, the predecessor in interest of the defendants. It is stated in the plaint that the promissory note dated 21.11.1987 was executed for a sum of Rs.21,000/- with interest at 24%. In the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of promissory note. The case of the plaintiff is that for the purpose of business, Shanmugham borrowed the amount.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit. They contended that Ext.A1 is not a genuine document. It is stated that Ext.A1 might have been fabricated by imitating the signature of Shanmugham in another promissory note executed by him in 1986 at the time when he had taken loan from the plaintiff. It is stated that the loan taken in 1986 was repaid with interest in 1987. The contention of the defendant is that plaintiff demanded a further sum of Rs.7,000/- towards interest in respect of the previous transaction and that Shanmugham did not agree to pay the same. According to the defendants, Ext.A1 promissory note was fabricated in such circumstances.

(3.) Before the trial court, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and another witness, who claims that he had taken Ext.A2 letter to Shanmugham, was examined as PW2. The first defendant was examined as DW1. To prove that the signature in Ext.A1 is not that of Shanmugham, Ext.B1 passport of Shanmugham was produced by the defendants. The plaintiff relied on Ext.A2 letter which was allegedly written by him to Shanmugham on 11.8.1988, demanding interest of Rs.4,925/- towards the loan transaction as per Ext.A1. On the reverse of Ext.A2, there is an endorsement that half of the interest would be paid on the next Tuesday. Reference is made in Ext.A2 about a typewriter given by the plaintiff to the defendants. In the endorsement on Ext.A2, it is stated that the typewriter was being returned to the plaintiff. The endorsement is allegedly signed by Shanmugham. The signature of Shanmugham in Ext.A2 was denied by the defendants. PW2 Krishnan Kutty stated in evidence that he took Ext.A2 letter to Shanmugham and Shanmugham wrote and signed the endorsement on Ext.A2. The evidence of PW1 would indicate that there is no witness to Ext.A1 transaction. Nobody was present at the time of advancing the amount and nobody saw Shanmugham putting his signature in Ext.A1 promissory note. The plaintiff is admittedly a money lender. Ext.A1 is a printed form of promissory note. There is no independent evidence to prove Ext.A1 and the signature of Shanmugham therein, except the interested testimony of PW1.