P S NARASIMMAN Vs. K JANAKIRAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed the Suit on a promissory note under Ex.A-1, dated 29.7.1982, execution of which is not in dispute, for a sum of Rs.25,000/-executed by the defendant, agreeing to repay the principal with in terest @ 18% per annum. According to the appellant plaintiff, in spite of repeated demands and the lawyer's notice dated 27.5.1985 demanding the amount due under the promissory note and since the defendant was not inclined to make the payment, but he came forward with reply notice dated 4.7.1985 by stating certain untenable grounds, the Suit came to be laid. The circumstances pleaded on behalf of the respondent/defendant for the execution of the promissory note other than the reason mentioned in Ex.A-1, were denied by the plaintiff.

(3.) ASSAILING the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that in Ex.A-1 pro-note itself, the consideration has been duly mentioned, namely for the development of the business of the respondent/defendant, that when the execution of the sale deed was not in dispute and when according to the respondent/defendant, Ex.A-1 pro-note had no consideration, the burden was upon the respondent to establish the same. Learned counsel further contended that the plea put-forth by the respondent/defendant that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was deducted from and out of the total sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs in relation to the purchase of the property of the lunatic, was a false statement, inasmuch as admittedly, the entire sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs was deposited by the respondent/defendant in the Court when permission was granted by the Trial Court. Learned counsel also contended that the alleged payment made under Ex.B.1 through D.W.2 had nothing to do with the suit pro-note.