- (1.)THE defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed O.S.No.362 of 2007 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,04,734.00 rounded to Rs.1,00,000.00 consisting of Rs.85,000.00 as principal component and Rs.19,734.00 as interest component calculated at the rate of 9% p.a based on a promissory note from the date of lending till the date of filing of the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court by a judgment and decree dated 01.09.2009. On appeal, by a judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dated 03.12.2011, the decree of the trial court was confirmed. As against the decree of the lower appellate Court confirming the decree passed by the trial Court, the present second appeal has been filed.
(2.)THE respondent herein filed the suit making the following averments:
On 01.05.2005, the appellant herein/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.85,000.00 and executed a promissory note promising to repay the said amount along with an interest at the rate of 12% p.a. In spite of repeated oral demands and a demand made by a legal notice dated 07.08.2006, the appellant herein/defendant did not make payment. Though in the promissory note the appellant herein/defendant agreed to pay an interest at the rate of 12% p.a, in view of Madras Act 4 of 1938, the respondent /plaintiff would restrict his claim of interest to 9% p.a. As on the date of plaint, the interest calculated at the rate comes to Rs.19734.00 and hence the appellant herein/defendant should be directed to pay a total sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 (rounded from Rs.1,04,737.00) together with costs and subsequent interest.

The suit was resisted by the appellant herein/defendant by filing a written statement making the following contentions:

The suit promissory note was not executed by the appellant herein/defendant on 01.05.2005 and he did not borrow a sum of Rs.85,000.00 from the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant herein/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000.00 in the year 2000 and as demanded by the respondent/plaintiff handed over signed unfilled promissory notes each one for a sum of Rs.2,000.00 and gave them to the respondent/plaintiff. Thereafter, the appellant herein/defendant was making payment of a sum of Rs.2,250.00 pm as interest for the said amount of Rs.15,000.00. Thus, for a period of 24 months, he paid a total sum of Rs.54,000.00 towards interest. When he had committed default in payment of interest for the months of March, April and May in 2002, the appellant herein/defendant was manhandled at a public place on his way to the Taluk Office by the respondent/plaintiff, pursuant to which the appellant herein/defendant chose to discharge the entire loan by making payment of a sum of Rs.6,750.00 towards interest and Rs.15,000.00 towards principal. Thus, he had paid a total sum of Rs.60,750.00 towards interest besides the principal sum of Rs.15,000.00. At the time of final settlement of the said amount, the appellant herein/defendant demanded return of the unfilled signed promissory notes. The respondent/plaintiff informed him that the pronotes were available in his other house in Olliyampalayam. When the appellant herein/defendant met him at Olliyampalayam, the respondent/plaintiff informed him that the promissory notes were kept in his house at Ulundurpettai. Likewise he was dodging for over a month and at last the respondent/plaintiff gave back the blank promissory notes containing the signatures of the appellant herein/defendant. At that point of time, the respondent/plaintiff adumbrated that he would take revenge against the appellant herein/defendant. Pursuant to such adumbration, the respondent/plaintiff in the name of one Elangovan, Son of Chandran caused a notice to be issued on 07.11.2007 as if the appellant herein/defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.95,000.00 from the said Elangovan on 20.12.2006. For the said notice, proper reply was issed. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff fabricated the suit promissory note forging the signature of the appellant herein/defendant and came forward with the present suit to make wrongful gain. The suit promissory note was also tainted by fraud and undue influence. There is no cause action for the suit and the suit should be dismissed with compensatory cost.

(3.)BASED on the above said pleadings, the learned trial Judge (Principal District Munsif, Villupuram) framed the following issues;
1) Whether the suit promissory note is forged by the plaintiff? 2) Whether the suit promissory note was executed by the defendant for valid consideration? 3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for? 4) To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?