SAMIKANNU NAICKER Vs. SIGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount due by the defendant in respect the promissory note dated 1.2.1992.

(3.) The defendant denied the borrowing from the plaintiff. It is stated, in the written statement, that the defendant has not seen the plaintiff and he is a stranger to the defendant. The defendant was not having any transaction with the plaintiff. The defendant has not received any amount from the plaintiff. The defendant has purchased vessels and certain articles from Sri. Selvasubramania Vilas Vessels Shop, Virudhachalam on 9.6.1990 to the extent of Rs.13,980, out of which, the defendant has paid Rs.7,000/- to the owner of the said Shop, leaving the balance of Rs.6,980/-. The defendant has also paid Rs.2,500/- and the remaining balance is Rs.4,480/- (wrongly typed as Rs.41,480/- in the written statement). The shop owner has compelled and demanded the defendant to put his signature on two stamped unwritten blank paper and the defendant had put his signature on the said two stamped unwritten blank paper. The Shop owner has fabricated the said stamp paper as promissory note in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, the promissory note is a fabricated one. No consideration was passed under the promissory note. On 25.7.1992, the defendant has paid the entire balance of Rs.4,480/-.