S. BALAKRISHNAN Vs. S.KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, is the appellant in this second appeal. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is his relative and that he approached him for advancing a loan of Rs.90,000.00 on 8/1/2006. The plaintiff gave the said sum to the defendant after taking Ex.A.1/promissory note from him. The defendant had agreed to repay the said amount with interest on demand. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not repay the said amount, when he demanded. The plaintiff issued Ex.A.2/legal notice dtd. 22/1/2007. The said notice was returned as unserved. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.9 of 2007, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,01,700.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization. The defendant entered appearance and denied having executed the suit promissory note. The learned Trial Judge framed the necessary issues. The plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 1 and the two attesting witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. Ex.A.1 to A.3 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. The defendant examined himself as D.W.I and the scribe of the promissory note was examined as D.W.2.

(2.) After considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge by judgment and decree dtd. 12/10/2009 decreed the suit as prayed for. Questioning the same, the respondent herein filed A.S.No.3 of 2010 before the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi. By judgment and decree dtd. 21/7/2011, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the first appeal was allowed. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be filed.

(3.) The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in law in reversing the findings of the Lower Court, though the appellant has clearly proved the execution ofEx.A.1 by examining the attestors viz.,RWs.2and3?"