A IRUDAYASAMY Vs. V PERUMAL NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S. No.53 of 1984, on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Ariyalur, is the appellant.

(2.) SUIT filed by the appellant was open for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note executed by the defendant. Ex.A-1 is the promissory note which says that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000 on 14.12.1978. It further says that the defendant shall repay the same on demand with interest at 12% per annum. It is dated 14.12.1978. On 14.12.1981, in part payment of the amount due, and acknowledging the liability, a sum of Rs. 100 was paid. When the amount was not paid in time, notice was issued under Ex.A-3, which was received by the defendant. But the defendant neither sent a reply nor settled the transaction. The suit was, therefore, filed for recovery of the amount due on the promissory note. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he admitted the execution of the promissory note. He said that the statement in the promissory note that he received Rs. 15,000 is not correct. According to him, he received only Rs.5,000, and in respect of Rs. 10,000, the document is not supported by consideration. He further contended that when he received the suit notice, a Panchayat was held and the plaintiff agreed to receive Rs.5,000 with subsequent interest. Thereafter plaintiff changed his mind and filed the suit. He has further said that he is willing to pay Rs.5,000 and is also prepared to prove that the document is not supported by consideration to the extent of Rs.10,000.

(3.) ON the side of the appellant, Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked, and plaintiff got himself examined as P.W. 1. Defendant examined himself as D.W.1, and two other witnesses were examined. No document was filed on his side. Trial court held that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed as prayed for. The suit was decreed. While holding that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed, the trial court held that once the defendant has admitted execution of the promissory note, the failure of consideration is a matter for proof by the defendant. The trial court further found that the evidence of D.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be believed, and, at any rate, they are interested witnesses. So holding, the suit was decreed as prayed for.