MUNUSAMY KOUNDER Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the dismissal of his money suit by the First Appellate Court by reversing the judgment and decree granted in his favour by the trial Court.

(2.) The facts of the case as averred by the parties in the plaint and written statement are as below:- According to the plaint, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff on 07.03.1998 and agreed to repay the same on demand with 12% p.a and executed a pro-note in favour of the plaintiff. Since the defendants on demand failed to repay the loan amount with interest, suit was filed for a sum of Rs.25,400/- being the sum of principle and interest, till the date of filing the suit. The said claim of the plaintiff was denied by the defendant. According to the defendant, he never borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff on executing a pronote. In fact, in the year 1995, he borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff, for which, the plaintiff obtained two signatures from him in unfilled bond affixed with revenue stamp. For the said due, he has already obtained a mortgage deed in the name of his brother-in-law and thereafter, he started threatening and demanding exorbitant interest. Hence, a complaint was given against the plaintiff on 26.02.2001 to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District. The plaintiff promised not to harass the defendant any further. However, making use of the blank pro-note signed and given to the plaintiff, he has filled up the same and filed the present suit. The witnesses were signed in his presence nor the pro-note was filled in his presence.

(3.) The Trial Court has framed the following issues:-