S ANTONY Vs. M DHARMARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in the original suit filed by the first respondent herein, is the appellant in the present Second Appeal. THE second and third respondents herein were also made as co-defendants.

(2.) THE respondents 2 and 3 herein/defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the appellant herein/first defendant. THE suit was filed for recovery of money due under a promissory note allegedly executed jointly by all the three defendants for a sum of Rs.1 lakh. THE defence plea taken by the defendants before the trial court was that the promissory note based on which the suit was filed was not a genuine one and the same was a fabricated one. It was not even the case of the defendants that the promissory note was concocted with the help of their signatures obtained in blank forms or blank stamp papers. On the other hand, the plea of the defendants before the trial court was total denial of execution of the promissory note.

(3.) THE plea of the appellant herein/first defendant is that though he had made borrowals from the first respondent/plaintiff to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/- ( which is Rs.10,000/- more than the amount covered by the suit promissory note), he repaid the same and discharged the loan in full. THE very contention of the appellant herein/first defendant that he was provided with financial assistance by the first respondent/plaintiff to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/- without getting any document is quite impropable. Apart from that, the admission that he had borrowed an amount, which is even higher than the amount covered by the suit promissory note, will also make it clear that the suit promissory note is genuine and is supported by consideration. THE courts below have arrived at a correct conclusion of a question of fact regarding the genuineness of the suit promissory note and the question of consideration, which decision cannot be termed 'perverse' to enable the court to interfere with the same in the second appeal.