K. MUTHU SAMY Vs. K. KANTHA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in 10/2009 on the file of the District Judge and Appellate Authority of Nilgiris at Udagamandalam dated 08.12.2009 reversing the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.16/2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Udagamandalam, dated 23.01.2009.

(2.) The Appellant is the plaintiff. The short facts of the plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff lent a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant on 22.10.2006. The defendant agreed to repay the same with interest @ 18% p.a. and executed a promissory note on 22.10.2006. Since the defendant failed to repay the said amount, the plaintiff sent a legal notice on 14.02.2007 calling upon the defendant to pay the suit amount. The defendant acknowledged the said notice on 17.04.2007 and he sent a reply after 5 months with false and frivolous allegations. Hence the plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- together with subsequent interest and cost.

(3.) The written statement of the defendant in brief is that the defendant never borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and he has not executed the promissory note as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant had money transactions between themselves before eight years and during such time, the plaintiff obtained the signature of the defendant on unfilled and revenue stamp affixed promissory notes, blank judicial, non judicial stamp papers, green and white papers on an assurance that he obtained it only as a security. The plaintiff has extorted the signature of the defendant by making use of those papers and filed this suit. The plaintiff should prove the genuineness of the signature by sending it to a handwriting expert. The plaintiff lent a loan to one Yogamani, who is known to this defendant. The said Yogamani failed to repay the loan and because of that the plaintiff got angry and concocted a promissory note by forging the signatures of the defendant. Subsequently, a Panchayat was convened in the presence of three (named) known people and the loan of Yogamani was settled by the defendant for a sum of Rs.45,000/-. Though the plaintiff received Rs.45,000/- as a full settlement, he refused to issue any receipt for the same. The suit promissory note is a fabricated one and the suit itself is vexatious.