(1.) THIS appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 23.4.1990 made in O.S.No.14 of 1989 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge. Erode, Periyar District. For convenience sake the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.
(2.) NIGGARD and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:The defendants jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff on 6.1.1986 and in consideration of the same, the suit promissory note Exhibit A-1 was executed by them undertaking to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a. Subsequently, they committed default in paying the amount despite demand. The plaintiff after issuing pre-suit notice dated 14.12.1998 which evoked no response, filed the suit for recovery of the amount due under the pro-note with interest and costs.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and the decree of the trial Court, the appellants/defendants has filed this appeal on the following grounds among others:(a) The judgment and the decree of the trial Court is against law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case.(b) Despite the defendants denied their signature and thumb impression affixed in Exhibit A-1, nonetheless, the trial Court simply decreed the suit without any proof.(c) Ignoring the fact that in the Vakalat D2-s signature is found but in the pro-note, Exhibit A-1, her signature is not found but only her purported thumb impression, the trial Court decreed the suit.(d) Disregarding the inconsistencies and contradictions in the deposition of P.Ws.2 and 3, the trial Court decreed the suit without considering the fact that D1 is a man of immense means and that he had no necessity to borrow money much less a sum of Rs.25,000/- under Exhibit A-1 pro-note.Accordingly, the appellant prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and for the dismissal of the original suit.