P. PONNUSAMY Vs. THANGAMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, in A.S.No.9 of 2014 dtd. 13/1/2020 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Sankari in O.S.No.303 of 2004 dtd. 10/6/2014.

(2.) Respondent filed the suit on the basis of a promissory note for recovery of a sum of Rs.75,330.00 with subsequent interest. The case of the respondent is that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.54,000.00from the respondent on 25/3/2002 to meet his urgent business and family expenses. He executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent promising to repay the amount with interest at 18% per annum either to the respondent or his order on demand. Despite several demands personally made to the appellant, he has not chosen to repay the amount either towards principal or interest. Respondent caused a legal notice to the appellant on 18/11/2003 asking him to pay the amount. Appellant refused to receive the notice. Therefore, this suit.

(3.) Appellant filed written statement denying the borrowal and execution of promissory note. It is submitted that the address of the respondent is not correct. The alleged borrowal of Rs.54,000.00 on 25/3/2002 and execution of promissory note are specifically denied. It is further said that there in no necessity for the appellant to borrow from the respondent. There is a pathway dispute between the appellant and respondent and as a result of this enmity, a false complaint was given in Komarapalayam police station by the respondent against the appellant. Respondent openly challenged that he would teach a lesson to the appellant. The signature and thumb impression in the promissory note are not that of the appellant. Promissory note is false and fabricated one. It is created with a view to take revenge on the appellant, with the help of supporters of the respondent. There is no cause of action for the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.