T. K. KULANDAIVELU Vs. K. P. NALLUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.278 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur is the appellant in this appeal. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from him and for consideration so received, the defendant executed the suit promissory note- Ex.A1 on 20.07.1994. The defendant agreed to repay the same on demand with interest. However, the defendant did not pay any amount either towards principal or towards interest. Therefore, the plaintiff caused to issue Ex.A2-Notice dated 25.07.1996. It was received by the defendant. The defendant issued Ex.A4 reply on 26.08.1996 denying the averments set out in the suit notice. Since the demand set out in the suit notice was not complied with, the plaintiff filed the suit in question in July 1997. It was numbered as O.S.No.212 of 1997. It was later renumbered as O.S.No.284 of 2004.

(2.) The defendant filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations. According to the defendant, he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff let alone on 20.07.1994. The stand of the defendant is that the plaintiff was originally conducting an unregistered chit business. When the defendant had bid for the prize money on one occasion, his signature was taken in a blank pro-note for security purpose and that the same had been misused. The defendant pleaded that the suit pro-note is a rank forgery. The learned trial Munsif framed the necessary issues. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the scribe as P.W.2 and the attestor as P.W.3. Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1. No document was marked on the side of the defendant. After considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Munsif by Judgment and decree dated 20.07.2010 decreed the suit and directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.87,205/- together with interest at the rate of 6% on the principal sum of Rs.50,000 from the date of plaint till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed A.S.No.92 of 2012 before the Additional Sub Court, Karur. The Appellate Court, by Judgment and Decree dated 18.03.2012, set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allowed the first appeal. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be filed. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) Heard the learned counsel on either side.