K. SIVAKAMI Vs. S. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 165 of 1999, on the file of Court of Principal District Judge, Dindigul. The unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below is the appellant herein.

(2.) The suit promissory note is alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 10.01.1993 for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. The defendant had failed to repay the debt, the plaintiff issued suit notice, dated 24.08.1993. The defendant has issued a reply notice, dated 20.09.1993 containing frivolous contentions. The suit promissory note was not executed as a security, for the loan borrowed by the defendant's husband, from Mangalam Finance Chit Corporation at Palani, as alleged in the reply notice. The defendant's husband had no transaction with the Mangalam Finance at Palani, at any point of time. The defendant is an Income Tax Assessee. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement would contend that the defendant had not executed the suit promissory note on 10.01.1993 after receiving a consideration of Rs. 35,000/-, as alleged in the plaint. The defendant does not know the plaintiff at any point of time. The defendant had not executed any promissory note after receiving Rs. 35,000/-, as alleged in the plaint. At the instance of her husband, C.A. Kumar, the defendant had signed in an unwritten promissory note. The plaintiff has concocted the suit promissory note only for the purpose of this case. The defendant had married one C.A.Kumar, some 6-1/2 years back. The defendant is working as a Professor in a College, was getting more than Rs. 5,000/- per month, towards her salary. The defendant's husband, C.A. Kumar, was not in cordial term with this defendant. The defendant's husband, C.A. Kumar, had joined in a chit by name, 'Mangalam Finance', at Palani, had borrowed several loans from the said 'Mangalam Finance' and had also executed several promissory notes. The defendant's husband has no means to pay the said loan amount. Since the defendant was working as a Professor and was earning to realise the loan amount from the defendant's husband, the plaintiff had threatened the defendant's husband to get a promissory note from this defendant as a security for the loan borrowed by him (C.A. Kumar). Only at the instance of her husband, C.A. Kumar, the defendant had signed in an unfilled promissory note. The defendant's husband also threatened to commit suicide, if the defendant refused to sign in the said unfilled promissory note. Only under such circumstances, the defendant had signed in the unfilled promissory note. The defendant is living separately from her husband from May-1993. After knowing this fact, the plaintiff only to realise the suit amount, has filed this suit against this defendant, who had not received any amount under the suit promissory note from the plaintiff much less Rs. 35,000/-. For the suit notice received by her, the defendant had sent a suitable reply, dated 20.09.1993. Both the execution and passing of consideration in respect of the suit promissory note is denied by this defendant. In the Mangalam Finance at Palani, apart from the plaintiff one N.M. Natarajan, S.M. Vairam, Pandian, Jeganathan, Dhandapani are also partners. So far the defendant's husband had paid Rs. 26,925/- to the Mangalam Finance in order to discharge the loan from the said Mangalam Finance by him. The suit promissory note is a forged one, and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief under the suit.