R JAYARAMAN Vs. S NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.10.2001 in O.S.No,89 of 2000 on the file of Court of Additional District Judge, Karaikal. THIS appeal has been projected by the appellant/plaintiff as against the Judgement and decree dated 12.10.2001 made in O.S.No,89 of 2000 on the file of Additional District Judge, Karaikal in dismissing the suit claim in entirety.

(2.) THE germane facts of the plaint are as follows: THE respondent/defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.12.1998 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the principal amount along with the interest at 18% p.a. THE respondent/defendant has not repaid the due loan amount to the appellant/plaintiff inspite of repeated demands made thereto. Hence the appellant/plaintiff has issued a notice to the respondent/defendant demanding payment of the said amount. A reply dated 3.10.2000 has been sent by the respondent/defendant stating that there has been no money transaction between him and the appellant/plaintiff on 27.12.1998 and that he is not in receipt of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the appellant/plaintiff and also stated that he has given a blank promissory note stamped and signed by him as security towards chit transactions with the appellant/plaintiff and that the appellant/plaintiff has filled up the same and converted into a promissory note and thereupon issued a notice. A rejoinder dated 18.11.2000 has been issued by the appellant/plaintiff stating that there is no truth in the reply notice and that the suit transaction has taken place on 27.12.1998 at the residence of the appellant/plaintiff etc., More over, the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant being working co workers in S.R.Mills, Nedungadu and the appellant/plaintiff on his voluntary retirement has received a lumpsum amount from the mills and kept the money in his Savings Bank Account with the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Karaikal, and helped the defendant in respect of his sundry debts.

(3.) ADDED further, it is the specific case of the respondent/defendant that the appellant/plaintiff has not returned the promissory notes stating that the same will be returned after finding them. The respondent/defendant trusted the plaintiff and therefore has not insisted the appellant/plaintiff to return the unfilled promissory notes. Again, the respondent/defendant has joined as a subscriber in the chit in the year 1998 and has received the chit amount in the auction. When the appellant/plaintiff has been paying the chit amount, he insisted that the respondent/defendant to sign in fresh promissory notes and the respondent/defendant refused to sign the same and therefore, a dispute has arisen between the parties which resulted in an issuance of an Advocate notice by the appellant/plaintiff claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent/defendant. A suitable reply dated 3.10.2000 has been issued to the appellant/plaintiff for which, a rejoinder on 18.11.2000 has been issued by the appellant/plaintiff with a developed version etc and an undated signature and stamp affixed on the promissory note and the manner in which the same has been prepared indicates that no transaction has taken place on 27.12.1998.