E. Padmanabhan, J. - (1.) The defendant in O.S. No. 7 of l974 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Ramanathapuram at Madurai, is the appellant. The plaintiff (respondent) filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs.11,158.35 on the foot of Ex. A -1, promissory note, d. 26th August 1972, for Rs. 9,600, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the defendant is not an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1938. The defendant contended that she did not execute Ex.A -1 promissory note, and she did not receive Rs. 9,600 as alleged. The defendant's husband, one Perumalsami Naicker was looking after the management of the properties of the defendant. While so, he used to take blank papers containing thumb impressions of the defendant under the pretext that they were needed for taxation purposes and also for the purpose of litigation against one Ponnu Jayappan and Guruvammal. Subsequently, the defendant and her husband Perumalsami Naivker fell out. The suit promissory note has been forged by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant's husband. It is further pleaded by the defendant in her written statement that the stamps on the suit promissory note have not been defaced, in the manner required under the Stamp Act. On that ground also it was pleaded that the suit promissory note was not enforceable in law. In any event, the defendant pleaded that she was entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1972.
(2.) The trial court raised the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the suit pronote is true and valid and supported by consideration? 2. Whether the defendant is entitled to the benefits of Act 38 of 1972?
(3.) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 3. The learned trial Judge found that the suit promissory note was genuine and supported by consideration. He further found that stamps on Ex A -1 have been defaced according to law and that therefore, Ex. A -1 is enforceable. However, the trial court found that the defendant was entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1972. In the result, the trial court passed a decree against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,768 with proportionate costs and with future interest at 6 percent per annum.;