ASHOK KUMAR Vs. MRS. LATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,82,250.00 with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on a pronote dated 1.7.2009, the present appeal came to be filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) Brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as follows:- The defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.9,75,000.00 on 1.7.2009 from the plaintiff , to meet her business and family requirements, and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at 12% per annum. Thereafter, the defendant had been avoiding the plaintiff and she had never paid any interest so far and when the plaintiff approached the defendant during the second week of May 2010 and demanded the principal sum back together with accrued interest up to date, she was quoting lame excuses. Hence, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 17.5.2010. However, the defendant has not chosen to repay the amount but she had sent a false reply. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant in the written statement denying the borrowal of Rs.9,75,000.00 and execution of pronote. It is the contention of the defendant that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant. She does not even know the plaintiff. She never borrowed any money from the plaintiff nor executed any pronote in favour of the plaintiff. The pronote is a fabricated one. While there was cordial relationship between defendant and her husband, her husband obtained her signature and thumb impression in blank stamp papers, plain papers and cheques for the purpose of business transaction. Her husband and one Vetrivel were close friends. As soon as the defendant came to know about the fact that her husband had handed over some blank documents to Vetrivel, she had issued legal notice to the said Vetrivel on 4.2010 and 4.5.2010 and also issued a publication on 5.5.2010, in this regard. Besides this the defendant has also filed a suit against the said Vetrivel in respect of Minor's property in O.S.No.36 of 2010. The said Vetrivel, taking advantage of the signature and thumb impression of the defendant available in the blank paper, had created a forged document and filed this suit. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the suit.