SUBRAMANIYAN Vs. DHAYALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree in A. S. No. 105 of 1990 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, tindivanam. The defendant, who has lost his defence before the Courts below, is the appellant herein. The suit is for money under Ex A1 promissory note.

(2.) THE averments in the plaint for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: THE defendant has executed a suit promissory note for rs. 10,000/- for a valuable consideration on 14. 11. 1988 at Mettuvailamur Village . In spite of repeated demands for the return of the above said debt amount, the defendant has not repaid the same. Hence the plaintiff has issued a suit notice on 2. 2. 1989. THE defendant had sent an earlier notice dated 27. 1. 1989 only to defraud the amount advanced by the plaintiff under the promissory note. THE defendant has not sent any reply to the suit notice. THE averment in the notice issued by the defendant dated 27. 1. 1989 are all false. THE allegation that the suit promissory note was executed by the defendant on behalf of his brother-in-law Chellaperumal in connection with the land purchased by chellapperumal (D. W. 2) and thereafter a release deed was executed by anandayeeammal, after receiving the amount towards her share are all not admitted by the plaintiff. THE allegation that the suit promissory note has been discharged in lieu of the execution of the release deed is not true. THEre is no connection between the said release deed and the suit promissory note because the defendant himself has admitted that one week prior to 14. 11. 1988 i. e. , the issuance of notice, the suit promissory note was executed in favour of the plaintiff. THE fact that the suit promissory note was executed on 14. 11. 1988 itself will go to show that there is no connection between the suit debt and the sale of above said lands in favour of Chellaperumal, the brother-in-law of the defendant. If the suit debt is discharged after the execution of the release deed, then the defendant would have got back the suit promissory note from the plaintiff. THEre is no endorsement made by the defendant on the promissory note in lieu of the discharge of the suit debt. THE above said Rajamanickam also died under suspicious circumstances. Hence the plaintiff has preferred a complaint against the defendant and his brother-in-law Chellaperumal on account of that there was an enmity prevailing between the plaintiff and the defendant and only to defraud the plaintiff, the defendant had sent a notice dated 27. 1. 1989. THE defendant after receiving the valuable consideration under Ex A1 had executed a suit promissory note. THE defendant is liable to pay 9% interest for the suit debt, since he is an agriculturist. Hence the suit.

(3.) AFTER considering both the oral and documentary evidence let in before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief asked for in the plaint and consequently, decreed the suit with costs as prayed for, giving six months time to the defendant to discharge the suit amount. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned trial Judge, the defendant has preferred an appeal in A. S. No. 105 of 1990 before the Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam. The learned first appellate judge has also dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the decree and Judgment of the learned trial Judge. The learned first appellate Judge also dismissed i. A. No. 98 of 1992 filed by the defendant to receive the additional documents. Against the findings of the learned first appellate Judge, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.