RAMASAMY UDAYAR Vs. PAVOONAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred by the Defendant in the suit against the judgment and decree dated 04.7.2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, in A.S. No. 48 of 2005 reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2004 passed by the I Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi, in O.S. No. 393 of 2001 filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,400/- with future interest based on a promissory note. The case of the plaintiff is that on 04.6.1998, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the plaintiff at the rate of 12% per annum and executed suit promissory note Ex. A.1. Despite several demands to repay the amount, as the defendant had not settled the amount, the suit has been filed.

(2.) The defence of the defendant was that the suit promissory note is created for the purpose of the suit and that the signature contained therein was not that of the defendant. As there was an existing enmity between the plaintiff and the defendant on account of a land dispute, in order to accede the defendant, the plaintiff had created the promissory note. The promissory note is not supported by a valid consideration. The defendant also had replied to the suit notice on 24.5.2001 and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Before the trial Court, the plaintiff had marked Exs. A. 1 to A.3 besides examining herself as P.W. 1. On the side of the defendant, though no witness was examined, Exs. B.1 and B.2 were marked.