R LINGASWAMI Vs. D KUBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants, whose defence plea in a suit based on promissory note was rejected by both the courts below, have brought forth this second appeal.

(2.) The respondent plaintiff filed a suit, seeking for recovery of sum of Rs.25000/- along with interest, alleging that the defendants appellants executed Ex.A.1 promissory note on 17.2.1989 for the borrowal of Rs.25000/- and they agreed to repay the principal and interest at 12%. Despite demands, no repayment was made and the same compelled the plaintiff to file the suit for recovery of money.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants by stating that it was a false claim; that the first defendant was 33 years old and the second defendant was 26 years old; that the Door Nos.130, 131 and 132 in Big Bazaar, Dharapuram Town belonged to the plaintiff; that the defendants purchased the same on 14.2.1989 for a consideration of Rs.1,90 ,000/-; that there was an oral agreement preceding the sale on 20.1.1 989; that on that day, in order to keep the agreement terms assured, the plaintiff got the signature of the defendants in an unfilled stamp paper; that it was, subsequently, converted into the suit promissory note, and thus, the document was a fabricated one and it was not supported by consideration, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.