M. HARISH BABU Vs. K. PRABHAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.77 of 2001 dtd. 17/2/2003.

(2.) Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.3,04,000.00 with interest at the rate of 24% p.a on the principle amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 against the defendant . Plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and her husband was examined as P.W.2 and marked Ex.A1 to A3 on their behalf. The defendant was examined as D.W.1, but no documents were filed on his behalf. The trial Court considering the entire evidence on record decreed the suit with interest at the rate of 12% p.a on the principal amount from the date of the suit till the date of decree and 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, defendant in the suit preferred the present appeal.

(3.) He mainly contended that though he disputed the execution of Ex.A1, plaintiff failed to take any steps to send the disputed document to the handwriting expert. The trial Court presumed the execution of Ex.A1 receipt in favour of the plaintiff as it was executed on his letterhead. In fact, Ex.A1 is the forged document. He also stated that plaintiff has no financial capacity to pay such a huge amount in the year 1992 and also contended that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The trial Court erred in holding that Article 22 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the present case. The said Article 22 is applicable only in cases where the deposit amount is repayable on demand. Under Ex.A1 the alleged deposit of Rs.1,00,000.00 was made only for one year, as such the Article 22 is not applicable. He also stated that there is no relationship of banker and customer between him and the plaintiff and thus the question of deposit does not arise. The plaintiff has kept quiet for more than 9 years from the date of payment of Rs.1,00,000.00 to the defendant though he was not paying any interest every month. She ought not to have kept quiet if she really paid such substantial amount. The legal notice was issued on 23/2/2001, in which she stated that recently she demanded the amount from the defendant, but he was seeking time on one or other pretext. She also stated that she made oral demand for several times, but it cannot be considered as a qualified demand. The trial Court misinterpreted the reported Judgment of the Apex Court. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.77 of 2001 dtd. 17/2/2003.