KUPPAYAMMAL Vs. A SITHESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in all the suits is the appellant. The plaintiff in these appeals filed suit on the basis of promissory notes executed by the defendants and the trial Court decreed the suits and the Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeals. Hence, these appeals are filed by the plaintiffs.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants executed suit promissory notes after receiving consideration stated therein and thereafter, they made one payment and failed to pay the amount due on the promissory notes despite demands and hence, the suits were filed for recovery of the amount.

(3.) The defence of all the defendants was that no consideration was passed under the suit promissory notes and there was a dispute in the family of the defendants and one of the brothers of the defendants by name Palanivel, who is also a respondent, in some of the appeals, borrowed money and for the purpose of defeating the rights of Palanivel, as per the advise given by Muthu Gounder, the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.141 of 1983 and 29 of 1983, these promissory notes were created as if the other defendants borrowed money from the plaintiffs and no consideration was passed and to defeat the rights of Palanivel, the defendants put their signatures in blank promissory notes and also affixed thumb impression in the front and back so as to make it appear that there was an endorsement and after the disputes between the family members of the defendants was over, the respondents did not get back the promissory notes from Muthu Gounder and taking advantage of the blank promissory notes, the said Muthu Gounder has filed these suits through his son, daughter and other relatives as if the respondents/defendants executed promissory notes in their favour for consideration stated therein and therefore, they are not liable to make any payment.