NALEENA Vs. ARUMUGHA PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff, who succeeded before the Trial Court in getting decree for recovery of money but, failed in appeal, is the appellant in the second appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that on 07.04.1992, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, but, since the defendant has not cared for repayment of the amount, a notice was sent to him on 08.03.1995, which was served on 16.03.1995, but, the defendant has neither replied the notice nor repaid the loan amount and hence, the present suit had been filed.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the defendant did not borrow a sum of Rs.45,000/- on 07.04.1992 or any other date and he did not execute any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had no capacity to advance such an amount. By way of clarification, it is contended by the defendant that he had approached the husband of the plaintiff seeking a loan of Rs.5000/- for which, he was asked to collect a sum of Rs.3,800/- from one Ponmudi, who owed such amount to the husband of the plaintiff, and his signature was obtained by the defendant on a stamped blank paper on 28.02.1991 and accordingly, the plaintiff had collected such amount from Ponmudi and thereafter, the husband of the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- on 06.12.1991 and another sum of Rs.1,000/- on 11.12.1991 and thereby the defendant had availed a loan of Rs.6,800/- only from the husband of the plaintiff and even towards such loan, 30 bags of paddy at Rs.300/- per bag was delivered to him on 10.02.1992 and hence, the said loan was fully discharged. It is further contended by the defendant that on a misunderstanding that arose in the partnership business run by the defendant and the husband of the plaintiff in taking cashew from Forest Department in auction, in the year 1993, the husband of the plaintiff had fabricated the suit promissory note and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.