SUBBARAYA MUDALIAR Vs. VENDAMIRDHAMMAL,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.1/87 on the file of the Subordinate Judge' s Court, Tindivanam, is the appellant in the second appeal. He filed the suit for recovery of money due against the respondents herein, who are the legal representatives of one Kannu Pillai alleging that the said Kannu Pillai borrowed a sum of Rs.9000/ - from him on 27.1.1983 and another sum of Rs.7,500/ - on 11.1.1984 and executed promissory notes in respect of the said borrowings agreeing to repay the sums with interest at 12% p.a., on demand, that Kannu Pillai died leaving behind the respondents as his legal representatives to succeed to his estate, that they were in possession and enjoyment of his properties, that they were therefore liable to discharge the suit claims out of the properties of Kannu Pillai and in their hands, that he requested Kannu Pillai during his life time and after his death, the respondents herein to pay the amounts due, that they had been postponing the same on false pretext, that he caused a notice to be issued on 20 -12 -1985 through his Counsel to the respondents and that even thereafter, they had not paid the amount necessitating the filing of the suit for recovery of a total amount of Rs.20,917.50.

(2.) The respondents resisted the suit disputing the execution of the two promissory notes by Kannu Pillai, that in the copy of the plaint in one place it was stated that the promissory notes had been executed on the same date and in another place it was stated that they were executed on different dates, that this by itself would show that the promissory notes were not true documents, but created by the plaintiff as would be evident from the fact that Kannu Pillai died on 19.9.1 983, that in respect of his obsequies, printed notice had been circulated in the village, that with a view to grab the properties of Kannu Pillai, the plaintiff had created the promissory notes, that it was false to say that during the life time of Kannu Pillai, the plaintiff demanded return of the amounts due under the promissory notes, that no demand had been made by the defendants either, that no notice had been issued and that the suit was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

(3.) On the pleadings, the trial Court framed the necessary issues and on the oral and the documentary evidence, held that the suit promissory notes were not true, that the plaintiff had not established that they were executed by Kannu Pillai and that therefore, the defendants were not liable for the suit claim. By judgment and decree dated 2 3.9.1988 the trial Court dismissed the suit. This was confirmed in the appeal A.S.No.207/88 by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, by judgment and decree dated 5.4.1989. It is as against that, the present second appeal has been filed.