JANARDHANAM Vs. KALAISELVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above appeals have been preferred against the common judgment, dated 24. 11. 1992, rendered in O. S. No. 219 of 1991 and O. S. No. 242 of 1991 respectively, by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The defendant is the appellant in both the appeals.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Kalaiselvan filed the suit in O. S. No. 219 of 1991 seeking a decree for Rs. 31,624/- with costs and further interest and the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of one Mangalakshmi Ammal on 1. 8. 1988 for a valid consideration of Rs. 25,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and no amount was paid either for principal or for interest and on 7. 2. 1991, Mangalakshmi Ammal assigned the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for a valid consideration and the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant on 2. 4. 1991 calling upon him to pay the entire amount and the defendant sent a reply with false allegations and hence the suit.

(3.) PLAINTIFF Kalaiselvan filed the suit in O. S. No. 242 of 1991 seeking for a decree for Rs. 31,712. 50 with costs and further interest and the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of one Usha Rani on 1. 8. 1988 for a valid consideration of Rs. 25,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and no amount was paid either for principal or for interest and on 7. 2. 1991, Usha Rani assigned the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for a valid consideration and the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant on 2. 4. 1991 calling upon him to pay the entire amount and the defendant sent a reply with false allegations and hence the suit.