T. SAMBANDAM & ANR. Vs. T. ATHIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10.4.1987 of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Kariakal made in O.S.12. of 1985.

(2.) The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 59.700.00 being the amount payable by the defendants on the basis of promissory note dated 1.8.1982 on a value of Rs. 45.000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the said sum from 1.8.1982 to 20.4.1985. According to the plaintiff, he is the son of one Thiru O.A. Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliar through his first wife and the defendants are the sons of the said Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliar through the second wife, that their father was a businessman and agriculturist, that there were several litigations with reference to sharing of the properties of late Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliar amongst the plaintiff and defendants, that having regard to the time consuming process involved in the various litigations, the plaintiff and the defendants thought of settling their differences in the presence of common mediators who are the well wishers of their family that pursuant to the negotiations which took place in the presence of mediators, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and as per the terms of the compromise, in lieu of the paddy to be given Jo the plaintiff by the first defendant, the value of which was arrived aquantum of 150 Kallams per acre for 13 years and the total price payable for that amount of paddy was worked out at a sum of Rs. 45.000.00 after making marginal adjustment. Based on the said term agreed upon, the defendants executed a promissory note jointly and severally in favour of the plaintiff on 1.8.1982. That the said amount of Rs. 4 5.000.00 was pay able on demand with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., that the defendants agreed to pay the said amount within a period of one year from the date of execution of promissory note, and since the defendants failed to pay within the stipulated period, the plaintiff was obliged to file the suit.

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement contending that the mediation was not a just and fair one and was not based on any facts and figures, that the promissory note was also based on a decision of the mediators which was unfair and unconscionable and therefore cannot be relied upon by the plaintiff. It was therefore contended that the plaintiff was bound to prove the consideration for the promissory note independently. It was contended that when the plaintiff issued a legal notice, the first defendant replied the same stating that he was willing for any reasonable settlement, but the plaintiff rushed to Court.