THIRUMALAI IYENGAR Vs. SUBBA RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 77 of 1955 on the file of the court of the subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Mathurai has filed this appeal challenging the correctness of the decree against him for recovery of the sum of rs. 6125-10-9 with interest thereon at 51/2 per cent per annum from 16-8-1955, the date of suit, till payment. The plaintiff, the respondent in this appeal claimed to be the assignee of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant and his wife, Kothaiammal in favour of one Ramaswami Raja, the younger brother of the plaintiff, for a consideration of a sum of Rs. 5500. Kothaimmal was dead and the defendant also was impleaded as a party to the suit. He denied that either himself or his wife executed the suit promissory note which he characterised as a forged document. He however admitted that on 1311-1950 the date of the suit promissory note, he executed a promissory note in favour of Ramaswami Raja for a sum of Rs. 500 and that promissory note was discharged by his executing an othi document in favour of the plaintiff and his brother Chinnaswami Raja where in the promissory note amount was adjusted and given credit to. The learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Mathurai overruled the plea of the defendant and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. This appeal has therefore been preferred by the aggrieved defendant.

(2.) THE two simple points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: (1)whether the suit promissory note was not executed by the defendant and his wife, the late Kothaiammal and is therefore a forged document, (2) whether the suit promissory note, if true and genuine, is not supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 5500 stated to have been borrowed by the executants of the note from Ramaswami Raja, the payee on the date of its execution.

(3.) RAMASWAMIT Raja, the payee of the note, Subba Raja, the assignee of the note (the plaintiff), Chinnaswami Raja and Sankara Raja are four brothers. They were not strangers to the defendant. The defendant is an agriculturist owning a considerable extent of immoveable properties and his wife, Kothaiammal also had agricultural properties. The defendant and his wife leased out their properties to the plaintiff as evidenced by registered lease deeds, Ex. B. 4 dated 27-7-1944, Ex. A. 5 dated 10-8-1950 and Ex. A. 7 dated 2-7-1951. It appears that the defendant had executed othi deeds in favour of Nacharammal, the mother of the plaintiff and ramaswami Raja. It is obvious from the evidence on record that there has been monetary dealings and lease transactions between the defendant and the plaintiff's family.