JAYARAM SAIT Vs. THILLAI RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.08.1997 in A.S.No.95 of 1996 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 18.09.1996 in O.S.No.410 of 1992 passed by the Learned Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore.

(2.) The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, while placing the Judgment in Appeal A.S.No.95 of 1996 on 19.08.1997, in paragraph 14, has, inter alia, observed that in regard to the first claim of Rs.10,000/- [being the balance of advance amount paid by the Respondent/Plaintiff to the Appellant/Defendant on 28.08.1989 on which it is seen that Ex.A.1 that a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been paid to the Defendants] that there is no acknowledgement in Ex.A.3 [Appellant/Defendant's reply lawyer notice addressed to the Respondent/Plaintiff's lawyer] excepting the mention of two admitted facts namely (1) that Rs.10,000/- was paid to the Defendant on 28.8.1989 and the other (2) that Defendant repaid Rs.10,000/- on 13.9.1989. We cannot merely infer that the balance amount would only be due and held that what was contained in Ex.A.3 was only on admission of the pre-existing liability and not a subsisting, liablity, which is vital to prove an acknowledgement and further that there is no acknowledgement of subsisting liability under Ex.A.3 and that the claim is barred.

(3.) In regard to the second claim of Rs.20,000/- based on Ex.A.4-Pronote dated 05.09.1991, the First Appellate Court has held that the signature of the Appellant/Defendant in the Pronote when specifically was denied, the Plaintiff should prove it by the expert opinion and this was not done and opined that it was unsafe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.2 to come to a proper conclusion and accordingly found that the Ex.A.4 -Pronote was not proved satisfactorily.