C ARUMUGAM Vs. G SELVADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein filed a suit in O.S. No.353 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Vellore, seeking recovery of the loan amount lent to the defendant/respondent herein together with interest and costs, by pleading that the defendant/respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- by executing a promissory note on 14.06.1990 and that, on demand by the plaintiff for repayment later, the defendant failed to settle the loan amount.

(2.) BY Judgment dated 04.04.2005, the trial court decreed the suit ordering recovery of the principal amount together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter, @ 6% p.a. till the date of realisation. Aggrieved over the said Judgment of the trial court, the defendant filed an Appeal in A.S. No.54 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court at Vellore, and the learned Sub Judge, disagreeing with the reasonings of the trial court, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court; hence, the present Appeal by the plaintiff.

(3.) IT is the case of the plaintiff/appellant that he had lent a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the defendant and, in consideration of the same, the defendant executed Ex.A1 Promissory Note, dated 14.06.1990. The contention raised by the defendant was that actually, Rs.30,000/- was not paid to him and that, for the earlier loans he had obtained from the plaintiff, by calculating interest thereon, double the amount was written in the Promissory Note/Ex.A1 as security for ensuring repayment of the loan. In that regard, DW-1, in his evidence, would state that a panchayat was convened, wherein, it was decided that the principal, interest and court expenses shall be Rs.30,000/- and the defendant shall pay the said amount in full discharge of all claims in respect of the suit promissory note. IT is the emphatic case of the defendant/respondent that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid to the plaintiff on execution of the discharge receipt under Ex.B5 dated 05.09.1994. Under these circumstances, the only relevant question to be dealt with is as to whether the consideration mentioned in the pronote has been discharged or not.