DURAIPANDI Vs. MOTCHIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the unanimous decisions of the Courts below, the defendant has preferred the above Second Appeal in a suit for promissory note.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 10.05.2002 and executed a promissory note agreeing to re-pay the same with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.. Despite repeated requests and issuing legal notice dated 13.04.2005, no amount had been re-paid by the defendant. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) It is the case of the defendant that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from one Paramasivam and repaid the same with interest without any default. As directed by the said Paramasivam, the defendant had transferred a sum of Rs.10,700/- to the plaintiff through Chit fund. Hence, there is no transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant and it is claimed that the said promissory note is a fabricated one. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.