B.MAHADEVAN Vs. K.VELMURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, who suffered a money decree, is the appellant. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of money based on promissory note dtd. 9/9/2006. According to plaint averments, the appellant/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000.00 on 9/9/2006 from the respondent for development of his business and agreed to pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It was the case of the respondent that in spite of several demands, the appellant failed to repay the said amount and hence, he issued a pre-suit notice and in spite of the same, the appellant failed to repay the amount and therefore, the respondent was constrained to file the above suit for recovery of money.

(2.) The appellant/defendant filed a written statement denying the execution of suit promissory note. According to him, he never borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000.00 from the respondent and executed the suit promissory note. He further submitted that the suit promissory note was a created one. He further submitted that he borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 from respondent in the year 1993 and paid back a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 towards principal and interest and settled the same in the year 1999. Further, he submitted that he borrowed another sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 from the respondent in the year 1999 and paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000.00 towards the principal and interest and settled the same in the year 2002. The appellant also submitted that during both the occasions, the plaintiff obtained signature of the defendant in blank stamp papers, pronote form etc.

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff examined himself as PW.1. Though he was cross examined extensively, he has not appeared for further cross examination ultimately, his evidence was closed. Thereafter, PW.2, who was one of the attestors to the promissory note was examined and he was also cross examined extensively. PW.2 also failed to turn up for further cross examination. The other attestor was examined as PW.3 and he is the only witness, who appeared for entire cross-examination. The respondent/plaintiff marked the suit promissory note as Ex.A1. The returned cover addressed to appellant/defendant was marked as A2. The signature of the appellant/defendant obtained in open Court was marked as A4. On behalf of the appellant/defendant, he was examined as DW.1. The pre-suit notice issued by him on 6/10/2008 calling upon respondent to return the blank promissory note signed by him was marked as Ex.B1, the postal acknowledgement card for the same was marked as Ex.B2. In fact, both Exs.B1, B2 were marked through cross examination of PW.1. The trial Court, after consideration of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the suit promissory note was a genuine one and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed this appeal.