N R THIAGARAJAN Vs. O V RENGASWAMY REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is as follows : the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,000/- from Thiru ramaraj on 2. 5. 79 and executed a promissory note in favour of the said ramaraj agreeing to repay the same with interest ($ 12 per cent per annum. Again on 7. 5. 1979, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the said Ramaraj for his business and agricultural expenses and executed another promissory note in his favour on the same date agreeing to repay the said sum with interest @ 12 per cent per annum. The defendant did not pay any amount towards the said two promissory notes. So, the said Ramaraj assigned the two promissory notes on 9. 12. 80 in favour of the plaintiff receiving the consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 11,000/- respectively. So, the plaintiff is the bona fide assignee of the said two promissory notes for valuable consideration. The endorsement for the assignment of the said promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff were made on the back of the promissory notes by the said Ramaraj on 9. 12. 80. The plaintiff and the original promisee Ramaraj informed the defendant about the assignments and required him to pay the amounts due to the plaintiff. Though the defendant promised to pay the amounts due within a short time, he was evading to do so. On 7. 5. 79, the defendant borrowed a sum of rs. 5000/- from one Guruva Reddiar and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 12 per cent per annum. The defendant did not pay that amount, Guruva Reddiar assigned the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the consideration of Rs. 5,500/ -. The plaintiff is the bona fide assignee for valuable consideration. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay that amount. Hence, the suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 32,255/- with subsequent interest @ 6 per cent annum on Rs. 24,000/ -.

(3.) THE defendant filed written statement admitting the borrowals under the two promissory notes, but, he pleaded discharge of the promissory notes. The defendant spent a sum of Rs. 5,200/- for the college education of the daughter of Ramaraj Reddiar and he has also spent a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for the jewels of the daughter of Ramaraj reddiar. He was also regularly paying interest and the suit pronotes have been completely discharged. No amount was received from Guruva reddier under the third pronote and that pronote came into existence as the amount was agreed to be borrowed whenever necessity arises and there was no necessity for the defendant to receive any amount. The plaintiff is not the holder in due course. The assignor did not receive any consideration from the plaintiff, the assignee and the assignment is not supported by any consideration. The. plain tiff is not entitled to any amount.