BALAMANI Vs. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 83 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gobichittipalayam. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs. 12,264/- from the defendant. The plaintiff has succeeded before the trial Court. On appeal by the defendant the learned first appellate judge has reversed the findings of the learned trial judge, which necessitated the plaintiff to come forward with this second appeal.

(2.) THE short facts in the plaint relevant for deciding this appeal are as follows: on 14. 7. 1993 the defendant has borrowed Rs. 12,000/- from the plaintiff to meet his family expenses and had executed a promissory note agreeing to pay 9% interest. Inspited of the notice dated 02. 10. 2003 and several demands made in person, the defendant failed to pay the debt amount. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

(3.) THE defendant in his written statement would contend that the suit promissory note was not executed by him and that he has not borrwed Rs. 12,000/- on 14. 7. 1993 from the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiff's husband viz. Subramaniam has filed O. S. No. 205/93 on the basis of a promissory note for the recovery of Rs. 7,400/ -. There was a compromise entered into between the parties in the said suit and as per the terms of the compromise, the defendant has to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the husband of the plaintiff viz. Subramaniam within two months. The defendant was making arrangements to sell his vacant site in order to discharge the said debt. But as compromised the defendant could not repay the said amount to the husband of the plaintiff Viz. Subramaniam. Hence, the plaintiff has forged the suit promissory note at the instance of her husband. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.