DHURAISAMY Vs. GNANENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.8 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani, is the appellant in the second appeal.

(2.) The respondent in this appeal filed a suit in O.S.No.8 of 2003, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,02,806.70/- and subsequent interest due on a promissory note for Rs.70,000/- and for costs.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in the suit is that, the defendant received a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- on 31.01.2000 and executed a pro-note on the same day and agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 24.10.2001, the defendant paid part of the amount towards principal, for which, the plaintiff had given a receipt. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has not paid any other sum, despite repeated demands and hence issued a suit notice on 22.10.2002. In response to the suit notice, the defendant issued a reply notice on 12.11.2002, contending that the allegations in the notice are false and thereafter, the suit was laid. The suit was contested by the defendant. He admitted the receipt of a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 13.03.1999 and a further sum of Rs.30,000/- on 19.01.2000. It is the case of the defendant that he gave a pro-note only for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Though the signature of the defendant is admitted in the written statement, it is stated that the plaintiff obtained blank pro-notes. It is further stated that for the sum of Rs.10,000/- a pro-note was given indicating Rs.10,000/- in figures. It is the specific case of the defendant that he was paying interest at the rate of 36% p.a., without any default and that he had repaid a sum of Rs.40,000/- and obtained a receipt. Thus, according to the defendant, the principal amount was settled in full, apart from the periodical payment towards interest.