BABY AMMAL Vs. M. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has preferred the present Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 8.10.1994 made in O.S. No. 251 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

(2.) The respondent herein filed the Suit seeking for a judgment and decree directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 49,200.00 with subsequent interest and costs. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 for discharging the loan and for family expenses on 26.5.1987 from the plaintiff promising to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum within a period of three years and she also executed a deed mortgaging her property in favour of the plaintiff for the loan borrowed. According to the plaintiff, the document was not registered and it is an agreement and the defendant did not repay the loan in spite of the demands made by him and the time to repay the amount ended on 25.5.1990 and within three years thereafter, the Suit is filed. It is further stated by the plaintiff that the defendant is not an agriculturist and she is not entitled to the benefits of the Debts Relief Acts.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement stating that she never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and she never executed the alleged agreement of mortgage and she has further stated that the plaintiff cannot claim any right through this document, which is not valid under law. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was working in Parvathi and Co., Jewellery Mart, Sirkali, on a monthly salary of Rs. 150.00 and he has got no money to lend such a huge amount to the defendant or anyone else. It is further stated by the defendant that her son Baskaran is the close associate of the owner of the above Jewellery Mart and he is leading a separate life and the defendant reliably came to learn that the Proprietor of the Jewellery Mart, Parvathi and Co., has created the document and filed the Suit in the name of the plaintiff. It is further stated by the defendant that the Suit claim is barred by time and the plaintiff has not issued any notice prior to the institution of the Suit and the document filed by the plaintiff is not properly stamped and valued and the plaintiff is not entitled for the Suit claim.