KANAGAMBAL Vs. KANNIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.216 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif, Vedasanthur is the appellant.

(2.) THE suit was instituted on the basis of Ex.A.1 promissory note dated 22.01.1997 stated to have been executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff for their receipt of Rs.25,000/- agreeing to repay it with 12% interest p.a. However, they did not pay as agreed. So, the plaintiff issued them Ex.A.2 Lawyer's notice dated 27.4.1998. But, it was returned by them (Ex.A.3 returned postal acknowledgment). But, on 15.5.1998, they have issued Ex.A.4 reply denying plaintiff's claim. In the circumstances, the plaintiff sued them.

(3.) APPRECIATING the above evidence and the rival submissions, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the execution of the promissory note has been proved by the plaintiff. So, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises. However, that has not been rebutted by the defendants by acceptable evidence. Thus, decreed the suit as prayed for with costs.