K. TAMILSELVI Vs. C. MAHALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.95 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru, are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was instituted by the first respondent/Mahalingam for recovering a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest from the appellants herein. According to the plaintiff, he was working as the Headmaster of Shaukathul Islam Primary School, Valoothoor and that the husband of the first defendant namely., Kamaraj was working seconday grade assistant in the said school. He had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 24.01.2009 and executed Ex.A1/promissory note. The said Kamaraj passed away on 08.02.2009 due to heart attack leaving behind the appellants herein as his surviving legal heirs. The plaintiff issued Ex.A3/notice dated 24.04.2009 calling upon the appellants herein to clear the loan liability. Though the notice was received, there was no reply to the same. Left with no other option, the plaintiff filed the said suit.

(2.) The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the first attestor/Balasubramanian was examined as P.W.2 while the scribe/Karunakara Tamilalagan was examined as P.W.3. Exs.A1 to A11 were marked on the plaintiff's side. The first appellant examined herself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B1 on her side.

(3.) The trial court by judgment and decree dated 15.04.2010 dismissed the suit. The trial court gave a finding that when according to the plaintiff, he retired on 31.05.2009, he could not have given a sum of Rs.50,000/- from out of his retirement benefit amounts. It was further held that on a comparison of the signature of Kamaraj found in Ex.A1 with his signatures in the admitted documents namely., acquittance register/Exs.A8 to Ex.A11, there are certain differences and that therefore, it has not been established that Ex.A1 was executed by the deceased/Kamaraj. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.61 of 2010 before the Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur. Before the first appellate court, the plaintiff marked Exs.A13 to A18, which are official proceedings. The plaintiff established that even though he reached the age of superannuation on 31.10.2008, since the date of superannuation fell in the middle of the academic year, being a teacher/Headmaster, he was entitled to be re-employed till the end of the academic year. The first appellate court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had lent the suit amount from out of his retirement benefits. The first appellate court also undertook the task of comparison of the signature in Ex.A1 with the signatures found in Exs.A8 to A11 and came to the conclusion and it was the deceased/Kamaraj who executed Ex.A1. In paragraph No.25 of its judgement, the first appellate court gave solid and convincing reasons for coming to the conclusion that it was the deceased/Kamaraj, who had executed Ex.A1/promissory note.