BOMMA NAICKEN Vs. CHINNA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned District Judge, Erode, in A.S. No. 61 of 1983, dated 21-9-1983, reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Bhavani, in O.S. No. 559 of 1981 dated 15-2-1983.

(2.) The defendant in the suit is the appellant in the above Second Appeal. The suit is on a promissory note. The plaintiff claimed that on 21-8-1978 at Kavunthapadi the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash from plaintiffs 1 and 2 and had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiffs promissing to pay the said sum with interest at 12% per annum on demand and that the defendant had failed to pay the suit amount in spite of personal demands and through registered lawyer's notice. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant being an agriculturist, interest was calculated at 9% per annum and the defendant owns land and raising sugar cane crops and commercial crops and his annual income for the year ending 1979 was Rs. 10,000/- and that therefore, the defendant was not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. The said claims were disputed by the defendant. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs were involved in a murder case and that on 19-2-1979 at 3.00 p.m. the plaintiffs had come to the land of the defendant and threatened the defendant, his brother Thimma Naicken and his wife Errammal that they should not give evidence in the murder case against the plaintiffs. This incident was duly complained to the Police and that therefore, both the parties were on inimical terms and that the plaintiffs have fradulently prepared the suit promissory note and had filed the suit. Even otherwise, the defendant was entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Reliefs Act 13 of 1980 and therefore, no amounts were payable to the plaintiffs. On the basis of the said pleadings and evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not properly established the truth of the suit promissory note and the execution of the same. With the result the suit was dismissed. However, the said judgment was reversed by the learned appellate Judge and hence the above Second Appeal.

(3.) I do not propose to consider any of the issues raised by both parties on merits of their respective pleadings and evidence in view of my conclusion that the appeal has to be remanded back to the lower appellate Court for considering a particular issue.