S RAMALINGAM Vs. M K SENNIIAPPAN

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.1,00,000/- on 19.01.2009 and executed a promissory note. Despite repeated demands and issuing legal notice, there was no response from the defendant. Hence, the suit has been filed.

(3.) The defendant denied the execution of promissory note dated 19.01.2009 and contended that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. The defendant specifically denied the signature found on the suit promissory note, as it is not that of his signature. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.