VIJAYARAGHAVAN Vs. DAMODARAN DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.NO.63 of 1986 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.

(2.) The defendant in the suit is the appellant and the plaintiff is the respondent. The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of money of a sum of Rs.39,000/- along with interest and cost on the ground that the appellant/defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.39,000/- during last week of September 1985, but the defendant/appellant failed to pay the amount borrowed. It is stated that the defendant/appellant has issued a letter dated 1.5.1986 and in the letter he has agreed that he received a sum of Rs.39,000/- from the plaintiff and also issued post dated cheque dated 2.7.1986 in the name of State Bank of India, Tindivanam for a sum of Rs.36,000/- and also agreed to pay balance amount of Rs.3000/-. The cheque was presented for payment but it was returned by the bank in view of insufficient funds. It is stated that the defendant/appellant was informed about the return of cheque by the bank, but the defendant/appellant refused to receive the notice. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.39,000/- along with interest and cost on the ground that the defendant/appellant had received said amount for the business purpose and hence, he is liable to pay the same along with interest at 12% per annum.

(3.) The case of the defendant in his written statement is that he completely denied the loan transaction of Rs.39,000/- and according to him, the defendant/appellant has not borrowed the sum of Rs.39,000/-. It is stated that the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellant were partners of a firm carrying on business of paddy and rice and the defendant/appellant had denied that he issued letter dated 1.5.86. The defendant has also denied that he issued post dated cheque dated 2.7.86 and according to him, when the defendant has gone outside the shop for the business collection, the plaintiff took advantage of the blank cheque issued by the him in favour of the Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation and the cheque was misused by the plaintiff by inserting his name and as such, this defendant is not liable to pay any amount. The appellant also referred to a panchayat that took place on 26.8.1986 as their business ended in loss and according to him in the panchayat the plaintiff admitted that the defendant has neither issued the cheque nor the letter dated 1.5.1986. The case of the defendant in the written statement is that he is not liable to pay the suit amount as claimed by the plaintiff.