DURAIRANGAM PILLAI Vs. GOVINDARAJULU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second defendant is the appellant. He is the surviving son of one Ramaswami Pillai who died in October, 1926. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the appellant and his brother for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,250 for principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 4 October, 1925, executed by their late father. The promissory note was for Rs. 3,750. The plaintiff's case is that the money was lent to Ramaswami Pillai and that the promissory note was executed by him at Tanjore between 8 and 9 A.M., on 4 October, 1925. The promissory note recites that the money was borrowed by the deceased for his contract business. The deceased was a P.W.D. and Abkari Contractor, on a large scale with his headquarters at Cuddalore in the South Arcot District. The appellant and his brother contended that the promissory note was a forgery, that their father had no necessity to borrow money and that the plaintiff had no means to lend the money. They also contended that the suit was barred by limitation.

(2.) The lower Court held that Ramaswami Pillai executed the suit promissory note and borrowed money thereunder from the plaintiff. It also held that the suit was not barred by limitation. We will first deal with the case on the merits and then deal with the question of limitation.

(3.) [His Lordship then discussed the evidence and held "that the suit note is genuine, and it was executed by the deceased Ramaswami Pillai, father of the defendants".]