RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR Vs. SUBBARAYA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in the Trial Court is the appellant in the above second appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of the amount under a suit promissory note stated to have been executed by the defendants on 20. 06. 1981, marked as Ex. A-1, having received a sum of Rs. 4,000/ -. On 01. 06. 1984, an amount of Rs. 5/- was paid towards the promissory note and an endorsement was also made at the promissory note and according to the plaintiff, the promissory note as well as the endorsement were written by the second respondent. Thereafter, since the amount was not paid, a legal notice was issued on 03. 06. 1987, marked as Ex. A-3, which was received by the defendants on 05. 06. 1987 and 06. 06. 1987 respectively, marked as Exs. A-4 and A-5. The defendants have also given a reply on 10. 06. 1987, marked as Ex. A-6. While the defendants have admitted the signature in Ex. A-1, their contention is that, on that date no consideration was passed and it was in respect of the earlier dues by renewing the earlier promissory note, Ex. A-1 was signed on 20. 06. 1981 and according to the defendants, it was only Rs. 1,500/- which was borrowed earlier. Therefore, it is only the consideration which is questioned. The defendants have also denied the endorsement made at the back of the promissory note and the suit is barred by limitation.

(2.) THE second defendant has also filed a written statement stating that there has been a Panchayat in respect of the payment, on the basis of which on 27. 11. 1988, the plaintiff has received a sum of Rs. 42,000/-, including the amount due under the suit promissory note. It is the case of the second defendant that since the said amount was not paid, the plaintiff has filed some other suits in O. S. Nos. 103 of 1987 and 416 of 1987 and on receipt of the said amount of Rs. 42,000/-, the plaintiff has agreed to withdraw the said suits and it was based on that belief, the amount was given. Therefore, it is the case of the second defendant that even-though the plaintiff has not kept up his promise, the amount due in respect of the present suit has been paid. The Trial Court, on an appreciation of evidence, has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff as against which the defendants have filed the appeal. The First Appellate Court however, reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court by allowing the first appeal. It was against the said judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the above second appeal.

(3.) WHILE admitting the above second appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:-