SUBBARAYA GOUNDER Vs. PALANIYATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendant is the appellant. THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.42,020/- on the basis of the promissory note executed by the appellant for a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 3.5.2002.

(2.) THE case of the respondent/plaintiff was that the appellant/defendant received Rs.40,000/- from her and executed a promissory note on 3.5.2002 and thereafter did not pay any amount either towards principal or interest and therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of the said amount.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts without properly appreciating the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 erred in holding that the execution of the promissory note was proved by the respondent. IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 the respondent had stated that the stamps are affixed at the top of the promissory note and thumb impression was affixed in the bottom and the evidence of PW.1 is contrary to the stamps affixed in the promissory note. According to him, in the promissory note, the stamps are affixed in the bottom and on the right hand side top, thumb impression is found and therefore, the evidence of PW.1 would also prove that she was not aware of the execution of the promissory note in her favour. He further contended that PW.2 is the close relatives of PW.1 and PW.2, and PW.3 did not state that the appellant affixed thumb impression on the promissory note and therefore, having regard to the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, thumb impression must have been affixed later and it amounts to material alteration and on that ground, the courts below ought to have dismissed the suit.