PARAMASIVAM Vs. KALAIVANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the defendant in a money suit based on pro-note. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, passing decree against him, this Second Appeal is filed alleging that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence properly and the plea of discharge of the pro-note debt disbelieved.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that, on 16.09.2005 the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.55,000/- from the respondent herein and executed a pro-note with a promise to repay the same with 24% interest. On 08.06.2006, a legal notice was caused to the appellant and same was returned "unserved". The suit for recovery of money restricting the interest @ 12% p.a. filed before the District Musnif Court, Nagapattinam.

(3.) The appellant/defendant in the suit, in his written statement denied the borrowal of Rs.55,000/- from the plaintiff. He contend that, on 13.07.2005, when the appellant was short of Rs.2,000/-, to pay the margin money at State Bank of India, Thiruvarur, to obtain a tractor loan, he met the plaintiff/respondent who promised to arrange loan of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, after obtaining signature in a blank paper, affixed with revenue stamp, a sum of Rs.2,000/- was given to him by the plaintiff, on condition that, the money should be repaid with Rs.10/- interest per Rs.100/- by the end of July 2005. The appellant repaid the loan with interest at the house of the respondent's brother-in-law. When the appellant asked for the return of pro-note, the respondent excused with reason that same got misplaced. However, misusing the said blank paper, he has filed the suit.