K.THANGAVEL CHETTIAR Vs. NACHIMUTHU GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. Alleging that the respondent/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 01.09.2000 from the appellant/plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a; that on 09.09.2000 again the respondent/defendant borrowed another sum of Rs.20,000/- from the appellant/plaintiff and executed Ex.A2-Promissory note promising to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a and that in spite of repeated demands made by the appellant/plaintiff, no amount was paid by the respondent/defendant either towards principal or towards interest, the appellant/plaintiff chose to file O.S.No.646 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-court, Erode. It was also the averment made by the plaintiff that both the suit promissory notices were written by the respondent/defendant in his own handwriting. Thereafter, the said suit was transferred to the trial Court, namely the Court of the District Munsif, Erode on change of the pecuniary jurisdiction and renumbered as O.S.No.1268 of 2004.

(2.) The respondent/defendant filed a written statement denying the alleged borrowal on 01.09.2000 and 09.09.2000. The execution of Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes on 01.09.2000 and 09.09.2000 was also disputed. On the other hand, the respondent/defendant contended in his written statement that he was an ill-literate person and he did not write the suit promissory notes as alleged in the plaint. He had also taken a stand that both the promissory notes were fabricated documents and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) In the light of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed three issues which are as follows: