PONNUSAMY GOUNDER Vs. THOTTI ALIAS MUTHU GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24. 04. 1995 made in O. S. No. 274 of 1990 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Sankagiri. The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court who filed the suit seeking money claim based on the promissory note, marked as Ex. A1.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the first respondent and One Mottaiyan Gounder had received a sum of Rs. 30 ,000 /-from the appellant/plaintiff on 30. 11. 1988 and executed Ex. A1 promissory note. But, they did not repay the said amount with interest. Before the trial Court, the first respondent herein was absent and hence, he was set expart e. The second respondent is the mother of the deceased Mottaiyan Gounder. In support of the case of the appellant/plaintiff, apart from the appellant/p. W. 1,p. Ws. 2 to 4 were also examined and Exs. A1 to A14 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the second respondent herein was examined as D. W. 1.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that there is a total denial in respect of the alleged execution of the promissory note by deceased Mottaiyan Gounder and also passing of consideration. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, P. W. 3 is the relative of the appellant and other witnesses are his friends and therefore, solely based on their evidence, it could not be held that the execution of the said promissory note has been proved. Further in Ex. A1, only two thumb impressions are available. Based on which, it cannot be said that the second thumb impression is that of the deceased Mottaiyan Gounder. It is seen that in Ex. A. 1 at the space provided for attestation, though two signatures are available, the name and address of the attestors have not been stated in the said promissory note. Nearby the Revenue stamp, the scriber has written a small dot as scribbling of Thotti engira Muthu Gounder and the scribbling as Mottaiyan Gounder and that ink used by the attestors to affix the signatures are also different and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the execution of promissory note has not been proved by the Appellant/plaintiff.