CHINNASAMY Vs. PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned subordinate judge, Tindivanam passed in A.S. No.52 of 1986, dated 4.3.1987, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Gingee, dated 11.12.1985. The plaintiff is the appellant. The parties will hereinafter be referred as per their rank in the trial court for the sake of convenience. The circumstances which has given rise to this second appeal may be stated briefly as follows:-

(2.) ON the above pleadings of the parties, the learned District Munsif, Gingee framed the necessary issues. The plaintiff examined himself and one of the attestors to the promissory note, Ex.A.1 on his side and marked the promissory note as Ex.B.1. The defendant examined himself and two other witnesses to substantiate his contention that the plaintiff is in the habit of demanding money from persons who applied for teacher's job in school and when they are not in a position to pay cash immediately he used to get promissory notes from them. He had also marked Exs.B1 to B.8 on his side.

(3.) IN the decision reported in Arumugham v. Sundarambal, AIR 1999 SC 2216 in para 14 it has been observed: -