NIRMALAKUMARI Vs. E VISHWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the defendant in O.S. No.136/1999 on the files of the Additional Munsiff's Court-I, Kozhikode, as well as the appellant in A.S. No.53/2015 on the files of the I Additional District Court, Kozhikode. The aforesaid suit was one for money.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the defendant and her husband approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 1/7/1998 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the amount on demand. The title deed of the property of the defendant was also handed over to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff demanded the amount borrowed from him, the defendant evaded from repaying the amount. Hence the suit was filed.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendant contended that she has no acquaintance with the plaintiff. She denied the averment that she had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff. According to her, no promissory note was executed by her, as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no source of money to lend a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. In fact, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from one Satheesh Chandran on 15/2/1998 and at that time, as security, the defendant had handed over signed blank papers wherein revenue stamp was affixed and also title deeds of the property of the defendant to him. Though she had repaid the said amount borrowed from the said Satheesh Chandran, he has not returned the signed stamp affixed papers or title deeds. The defendant had repaid the amount through her brother Prem Kumar and Satheesh Chandran made an assurance that the papers would be handed over to Prem Kumar. Subsequently, a quarrel arose between Satheesh Chandran and Prem Kumar and due to the enmity between Satheesh Chandran and Prem Kumar, Satheesh Chandran forged the signed blank papers and created the promissory note and instituted the suit through the plaintiff. Thus, Satheesh Chandran is the man behind the suit.