M MOLAYAPPA GOUNDER Vs. M SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 5.12.1994 made in O.S. No. 123 of 1991 on the file of the Court of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode. The plaintiff is the appellant.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit seeking for a decree against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 77,000/- with subsequent interest and costs. THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 15.3.1988 from the plaintiff for his urgent family expenses promising to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum on demand either to the plaintiff or his order and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and inspite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay any amount towards the principal or interest and on 2.2.1991, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant and the defendant sent a reply with false and untenable averments and the defendant is not entitled to any benefit under the Tamilnadu Debt Relief Act.

(3.) THE trial Court framed 6 issues and the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exhibits A-1 to A-20 on his side and the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and examined D.W.2 and marked Exhibits B-1 to B-4 on his side. Exhibits C-1 to C-5 were marked as Court exhibits. THE trial Court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, held that the suit promissory note is not true and genuine and the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.