S VENKATESAN Vs. V MUNUSAMY; RAJ AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful first defendant has brought this second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.

(2.) The first respondent/plaintiff Mr.V.Munusamy borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from one Mr.A.M.Palani on interest, however, after sometime, he was unable to cope up with the huge rate of interest, as a result, he decided to settle the aforesaid loan of Rs.25,000/- with an amount of Rs.75,000/- in full quit by the end of January, 1995. Due to the pressure mounted on the first respondent by the said Mr.A.M.Palani to pay triple the loan amount within a period of two years, he had approached the appellant/first defendant for loan to get himself relieved from the pressure of the said Mr.A.M.Palani with a request that he would not pay interest for a period of two years, since his right hand suffered with some disability. It was also the case of the first respondent that taking advantage of his helpless position, the appellant came forward with a proposal and undertaking to pay and discharge the aforesaid amount of Rs.75,000/- in full with the said Mr.A.M.Palani on fulfillment of two conditions, namely, (a) that the first respondent should execute a mortgage deed in respect of the suit property and register it in favour of the appellant for the said unpaid sum of Rs.75,000/- and (b) that the first respondent should also execute a pro-note for Rs.28,000/- towards the future interest for a period of two years. Accordingly, the first respondent executed the registered mortgage deed on 27.2.95 and also executed the pro-note for Rs.28,000/- as demanded by the appellant.

(3.) However, after sometime, the appellant, colluding with the said Mr.A.M.Palani, issued a notice on 14.7.97 claiming Rs.75,000/- towards the principal and almost an equal sum of Rs.74,060/- towards the alleged accrued interest within a period of less than 2= years. However, when the said Mr.A.M.Palani again demanded money from the first respondent during the month of November, 1997 stating that no amount was paid to him by the appellant as undertaken by him, the first respondent approached some of the local people, namely, Mr.N.Ravi, Mr.N.Murthy, Mr.Perumal and others, who had arranged for a panchayat, and on 18.12.97, in the presence of the panchayatdars and the appellant, a sum of Rs.28,000/- was paid to the said Mr.A.M.Palani in full discharge of the original loan of Rs.25,000/-. It is at that point of time the appellant, having admitted the fact before the panchayatdars that he had not paid the entire amount of Rs.75,000/- to the said Mr.A.M.Palani, cancelled and returned the pro-note dated 27.2.95 to the first respondent which was executed by him towards future interest for a period of two years, it was claimed by the first respondent that the appellant cannot make any claim on the basis of the pro-note that was cancelled and returned on 18.12.97 to the first respondent. But concealing the above meeting held in the presence of Mr.N.Ravi, Mr.N.Murthy, Mr.Perumal and others, the appellant ought not to have issued another telegraphic notice, which was received by the first respondent on 31.1.98, claiming Rs.1,74,479/-.