RAMASAMY Vs. KAMALAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in the Trial Court are the appellants. The first re spondent has filed the Suit on the promissory note stated to have been executed by the defendants on 5.1.1989 for an amount of Rs.10,000/-agreeing to repay the said amount along with 12% interest. The defendants have denied the receipt of the said amount. However, it was the specific case of the defendants that they have received Rs.8000/- from the plaintiff in 1981 but the plaintiff has obtained a promissory note from the defendants for Rs. 10000/- on 9.11.1981. It was at that time, according to the defendants, the plaintiff has obtained signatures of the defendants in a blank stamp paper. The defendants have returned the amount received by the plaintiff in 1981 and thereafter, there was no transaction between the defendants and the plaintiffs and at the insistence of the brother of the first defendant one Marimuthu, the Suit promissory note was created in the blank paper. The promissory note was marked as Ex.A-1 dated 5.1.1989, the first defendant-Ramasamy was examined as D.W.I and the second defendant-Selvaraj was examined as D.W.2.

(2.) ACCORDING to the first defendant, he was in the habit of signing as A ...... and according to the second defendant as D.W.2, he used to sign as V. Selvaraj in English. However, the promissory note Ex.A-1 contains the signature of the first defendant as and the second defendant's signature found in Tamil. The second defendant has also produced various documents like Ex.B-13 and B-16 to show that he is in the habit of signing his name in English.

(3.) THE contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that when the plaintiffs have filed the Suit for promissory note under Ex.A-1 and the defendants has come out specifically denying the signature, on the above said averments, it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove the genuiness of the signature in the promissory note at least by examining the witnesses, who have signed in the promissory note. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the appellant it should be taken that the plaintiff, who has filed the Suit has not taken any steps to prove his case. He would also submit that the Trial Court has taken the same into consideration and found that the plaintiff has not proved the execution of the promissory note by the defendants and it was on that basis the Suit was dismissed.