M PARAMESHWARI Vs. M C THENMOZHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in the suit in O. S. No. 42 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram, is the appellant in this first appeal. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 42 of 2011 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,18,834/- along with interest at the rate of 12% on the principal sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- and for costs.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- on different dates agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 12% and executed four promissory notes. The date of promissory notes and the amount borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff are stated as follows:

(3.) It is the further the case of the plaintiff that despite repeated requests to repay the amount with interest, the defendant did not repay the amount nor paid interest. The suit was contested by the appellant denying the execution of the promissory notes or receipt of any money as loan from the plaintiff. It is the case of defendant that the promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff are forged and that the promissory notes have been fabricated by showing the plaintiff's associates as witnesses. It is also contended by the defendant that there was no necessity for the defendant to borrow any money for construction of the house. It is further contended by the defendant that the plaintiff has no means to advance such a huge sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- within a short span of three months. It is also stated by the defendant that the defendant's husband and brothers are in abroad and that they are well-off and therefore, the defendant was never in need of any money that too for borrowing a huge sum of Rs. 12,00,000/-. It is also the case of the defendant that the defendant alone helped the plaintiff's husband to go abroad. It is further stated that the plaintiff used to get the assistance of plaintiff for depositing the money in bank and to withdraw the money which was transferred by way of exchange by her husband. It is further stated that the plaintiff who was acquainted with the signature of the plaintiff has created/fabricated the suit promissory notes. It is also contended that the defendant used to put the signature of the plaintiff to withdraw the money sent to the defendant. It is further stated that the plaintiff because of the mis-understanding has manipulated the suit promissory notes with an evil design to grab the property of the defendant.