R SARAVANAN Vs. P N PERUVAZHUTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal arises out of judgment in A. S. No. 1 of 2005 reversing judgment of the trial Court in O. S. No. 163 of 2004 and thereby decreeing the suit, directing the defendant to pay Rs. 64,413/- along with subsequent interest and costs. Unsuccessful defendant is the appellant.

(2.) CASE of plaintiff is that defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,000/- on 10. 05. 1998 and a sum of Rs. 19,300/- on 10. 09. 1998 from plaintiff and executed ex. A1 and Ex. A3 Promissory Notes on the same date agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Defendant paid a sum of Rs. 500/-towards interest on 03. 02. 2001 and made endorsement (Ex. A2) in the first promissory note) and paid a sum of Rs. 500/- towards second promissory note for the part payment of interest on 17. 03. 2001 and made endorsement (Ex. A4) to that effect. Stating that inspite of repeated demands defendant did not pay the amount, plaintiff filed suit O. S. No. 61 of 2002 for recovery of Rs. 52,686/- along with subsequent interest and cost.

(3.) DEFENDANT resisted the suit denying having approached the plaintiff for financial help to meet his family expenses and to discharge his family debts. Defendant had not denied execution of his signatures in Ex. A1 and Ex. A3 promissory Notes. But, according to defendant, he was conducting a chit and plaintiff joined as subscriber in two chits and plaintiff was successful bidder in 19th and 20th chits and after the chit, defendant was not in a position to pay the chit amount to the plaintiff immediately and at the instance of plaintiff, defendant signed two blank stamped Promissory Notes. Defendant further averred that within two years, defendant paid the entire chit amount to plaintiff and when asked for return of Promissory Notes, plaintiff stated that promissory Notes were misplaced and assured that he would return the same as and when he finds Promissory Notes. According to defendant, because of assurance given by plaintiff, defendant did not insist for any receipt. Defendant specifically denied Ex. A2 and Ex. A4 endorsement and according to him those endorsements are forged and fabricated. Defendant further averred that because of enmity, plaintiff has filed the suit based on the forged endorsements.