KANTHIRATHINAM Vs. SAJJADI BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who lost in the court below in O. S. No. 2524/77, on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras has come up in appeal. The suit was laid on the foot of three promissory notes. Ex. A-1 dt. 1. 4. 74 is for a sum of Rs. 10,000; Ex. A-2 dt. 1. 1. 76 for a like sum and Ex. A-3 of even date 1. 1. 76 for a like sum. Inspite of demand, the defendant did not pay, notwithstanding the fact the suit notices passed between the parties. Hence the suit.

(2.) IN the written statement it was contended that in or about April 1974, the plaintiff entreated the defendant to purchase some materials like tape recorder, radio, etc. The value of those articles was fixed at Rs. 5,000. In order to secure repayment the plaintiff wanted the defendant to execute a promissory note not for rs. 5,000 but for Rs. 10,000. At that time the defendant was given an assurance that the promissory note would not be enforced. Late on, it was represented to her by the plaintiff that the said promissory note was lost in the theft that took place in the plaintiff's house, and therefore, two promissory notes were required to be executed. Accordingly they were executed on 1. 1. 1976 for Rs. 10,000 each. The money due to the plaintiff was paid by defendant and discharge receipt was also given by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff represented that the promissory notes were not readily available for return, she executed a discharge receipt saying that all the three promissory noted were cancelled. This fact has been brought out even in the reply notice by the defendant. This has been suppressed in the plaint.

(3.) ON the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial :