V VEERAMALAI Vs. KRISHNA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.101 of 2004, before the 1st Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli, and in the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.89 of 2009, have directed this second appeal.

(2.) RESPONDENT /plaintiff instituted the suit alleging that on 25.11.2001, appellants/defendants have borrowed Rs.1,00,000/ - agreeing to repay it with 12% interest per annum, based on the promissory note, dated 25.11.2001 (Ex.A1), however, they did not pay in spite of a notice, dated 26.12.2003 (Ex.A2), thus, the suit.

(3.) 1st defendant/1st appellant filed written statement, which has been adopted by 2nd defendant/2nd appellant resisting the suit. It has been pleaded in the written statement that respondent/plaintiff is a money lender, as against certain blank promissory note, 2nd defendant/2nd appellant alone had borrowed money from respondent/plaintiff putting her thumb impression, however, later respondent/plaintiff forged the signature of 1st defendant/1st appellant also and made the suit promissory note. It has been further alleged that 1st defendant/1st appellant always used to sign as 'V.Veeramalai @ Thangaraj' and not as 'V.Thangaraj', which is found in the said promissory note.