THOOSIMUTHU PANDIAN Vs. ANTHONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 187 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Valliyoor. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note reportedly executed by this petitioner on 06.01.1996 on receipt of Rs. 6,000/- from him agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 36%p.a. In stead of repeated demands, there was no payment and hence, the plaintiff sent a suit notice on 10.04.1997. Even though the defendant received it, he did not send any reply. Hence, the suit.

(2.) In the written statement, it is alleged that the defendant did not receive Rs. 6,000/- from the plaintiff and he has not executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. In fact, the defendant received a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as hand loan from the plaintiff before three and half years. However, he did not execute any promissory note for that amount. The plaintiff has taken 36% p.a. of interest for Rs. 3,000/- at the time of giving the loan. But, the said loan has become time barred. The defendant, afterwards, prior to four years, received Rs. 3,000/- from one Justus and he received the signature of the defendant in a blank stamped paper. The defendant settled the amount with him. The said Justus told the defendant that he has misplaced the said promissory note, and with the help of the above said signed unwritten blank stamped paper, the said Justus prepared the fabricated the promissory note by forging signature of this defendant. The plaintiff and Justus are close friends. The said promissory note does not contain the signature of this defendant. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with cost.

(3.) After full trial, the learned Additional District Munsif, Valliyoor, dismissed the suit without cost by observing that the plaintiff has not discharged his burden of proving the execution of the promissory note. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal in A.S. No. 248 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli on 26.06.2003. The learned Principal District Judge allowed the appeal with costs of both Courts and also with interest.