K. Abraham Mathew, J. - (1.) The plaintiff against whom a decree for recovery of money has been passed in the suit instituted by the respondent is the appellant. The respondent alleged that on 13.4.1998 the appellant for his business purpose borrowed from him Rs.1,50,000/- executing a promissory note undertaking to repay the amount with interest at 18% per annum and in spite of demand he failed to pay the amount. He prayed for recovery of the amount with interest at 18% per annum. The appellant contended that he did not borrow money from the respondent and did not execute the promissory note relied on by the latter. His version is that he had certain money transactions with the respondent's brother and in connection with those transactions he had given him signed and stamped blank papers and other papers and the promissory note produced in the case was prepared on one of those papers. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. This is assailed in this appeal.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.
(3.) The following points arise for consideration a) Did the appellant borrow Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondent executing Ext A1 promissory note undertaking to repay it with interest at 18% per annum ? b) Whether the decree of the lower court is liable to be set aside? Points;