K. JAYARAMAN Vs. N. GOVINDARASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No. 133 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur is the appellant and the plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent herein. The respondent herein filed the said suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs. 61,459/ - with interest based on a dishonoured cheque. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for by decree and judgment dated 25.02.2011. As against the same, the appellant/defendant filed an appeal in A.S. No. 26 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvarur. By decree and judgment dated 24.11.2011, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the appellant/defendant is before this Court with this second appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: - -

(3.) The defendant in his written statement disputed his liability. According to him, it is not true that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,000/ -from the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, according to him, he had borrowed only a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - from the plaintiff on 03.09.2009 and as a security for the said loan transaction, the cheque in question which was unfilled but signed by the defendant was obtained by the plaintiff. It is the further case of the defendant that at the same time, the plaintiff also obtained signature of the defendant in a blank promissory note form. Subsequently, the defendant demanded more interest. According to him, finally, the loan was discharged by him in full. Not satisfied with the same, the plaintiff made a complaint to the police against the defendant and in the Police Station, a compromise was reached between the parties, in which, the plaintiff admitted the payments made by the defendant and agreed to return the blank promissory note and the blank cheque but, he did not return the same to the defendant. Thus, According to the defendant, he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff.