ALAMELU AMMAL Vs. RAMANUJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree in A. S. No. 47 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court, Tindivanam. The plaintiff who won before the trial Court, but lost her case before the first appellate Court, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE short facts of the case of the plaintiff in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows: on 11. 1. 1986 the plaintiff had executed a promissory note for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/- agreed to pay 12% interest per annum. The defendant has not repaid the amount in spite of several demands and finally issued a lawyer's notice on 21. 8. 1989. Since the defendant is an agriculturist, the plaintiff restricts his interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE defendant in his written statement would contend that the suit promissory note was not executed by him and no consideration passed and that the suit promissory note is a forged one. He had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,200/- in the year 1986 from one Ramachandra Maistha but the promissory note was executed for Rs. 2,500/- including the interest. Even one month before the expiry of the limitation period, the said debt was discharged by the defendant and when the defendant asked for the return of the promissory note, the plaintiff had promised to search the same and returned the same as early as possible. Afterwards, the plaintiff, with the help of the signature found in the earlier promissory note, has forged the suit promissory note. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.