P.SAMYNATHAN Vs. D.MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants in a suit for recovery of monies to the tune of Rs.10,28,250.00, based on a promissory note and declaration that the settlement deed dtd. 6/12/2018 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the

(2.) nd defendant is null and void, are the appellants herein. 2.The averments in the plaint, set out briefly: The defendants are father and son. The 1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.9.00 lakhs from the plaintiff on 7/10/2017 and evidencing the borrowing, he executed a on demand promissory note on the same day, undertaking to repay the amount of Rs.9.00 lakhs, together with interest at the rate of Rs.2.00 for every Rs.100.00 per month. According to the plaintiff, the debt was incurred by the 1 st defendant for family necessity and to meet the family expenses which was known to all the family members of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff was constrained to issue a notice on 1/4/2019, since the 1st defendant committed default in payment of even interest, despite demands made by the plaintiff. It is also averred in the plaint that in order to defraud the plaintiff and other creditors, the 1st defendant had executed a nominal settlement deed on 6/12/2018 in favour of his son, the 2nd defendant. The said settlement deed was also challenged in the suit.

(3.) The written statement filed by the defendants, set out briefly: The defendants admit the relationship between the defendants, as also the factum of the 1st defendant carrying on agricultural activities. It is contended by the defendants that the plaintiff was running a chit business for several years and the 1st defendant was a member and he had joined three chits for Rs.2.00 lakhs and six chits for Rs.1.00 lakh, totalling, in all, nine chits and according to the defendants, one of the said nine chits was still alive/going on. The plaintiff was carrying on the chit business, without duly registering the same before the competent authority, which was known to the entire village.