RAJAGOPAL Vs. A.K. CHINNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff is the Appellant. The Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount based on promissory note. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant and one Sengamuthu borrowed a sum of Rs.4.500/ - from the plaintiff on 4.10.75 and executed a promissory note and that in spite of repeated reminders, the defendant has not paid the amount. The defendant contended in the written statement that Sengamuthu borrowed a sum of Rs.7,000/ -from Ramasamy, plaintiffs cousin and that the amount was paid in the presence of the defendant and that Sengamuthu was having a lorry MDN 5041 and that the lorry met with an accident 10 days prior to the borrowing of Rs.7,000/ - and that only to effect the repairs for the lorry Sengamuthu borrowed the amount promising to repay the same with interest of Rs.500/ - within 15 days and that Sengamuthu executed a written document on stamp paper in favour of Ramasamy and after effecting repairs Sengamuthu was not willing to dispose of the lorry and that he was postponing the payment of Rs.7,000/ - due to Ramasamy and that subsequently Sengamuthu paid Rs. 2,500/ - in the presence of the defendant in June, 1975, and that the defendant was asked by Ramasamy to take Sengamuthu and accordingly on 4.10.1975, the defendant went to the firewood depot of the plaintiff and that Sengamuthu was also present there and that Ramasamy demanded execution of promissory note for Rs.4,500/ - from the said Sengamuthu and that they also demanded the defendant to join in the execution of the promissory note as surety for which the defendant refused and that Ramasamy and plaintiff threatened the defendant to detain him under "MISA" and that out of fear, the defendant put his signature in the suit promissory note and that when the witness Kutti Gounder asked the plaintiff as to why the defendant was compelled, the plaintiff told them that no action will be taken against the defendant and that only to ensure the payment by Sengamuthu the promissory note has been obtained from the defendant and that the plaintiff also informed that if the promissory note is in his name Sengamuthu will have a fear to pay the amount promptly and that therefore the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and that it is not binding on the defendant and that the defendant is a debtor as per Act 13 of 80. The trial Court has framed the following issues: -

(2.) The following questions are formulated as points for determination in this Second Appeal.

(3.) Points: - (i) It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,500/ - from the plaintiff. The plaintiff, P.W.1, has stated in his evidence that he paid the amount to defendant and that he executed the suit promissory note. P.W.2 is scribe of Ex.A -1. He has stated that the defendant executed the promissory note. D.W.1, the defendant has also stated that he has signed in Ex.A -1. But he would say that he did not receive any consideration. D.W.2, has stated that he and D.W.1 executed Ex.A -1. The Appellate Court has framed the following point for determination, "Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration." The case of the plaintiff that the defendant and D.W.2 executed Ex.A -1 has been accepted by the Trial Court.