- (1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.365 of 2004 is the appellant before this court. THE suit in O.S.365/04 was filed by the Plaintiff, N.Subbiah Pillai, for recovering a sum of Rs.3,43,466.66 with subsequent interest. THE case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff was employed in Rameswaram Temple. He was having a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as his savings on the verge of his retirement from service and he was contemplating to purchase a house for residence at Rameshwaram. At that point of time, he came into contact with the defendant who belongs to the same place. On the basis of the advice given by the defendant that Rs.2,00,000/- could be lent to him by way of loan and that the said loan would carry interest at 4% per month and thereby he would be getting more money on the savings . He further suggested that the Plaintiff could also be inducted as a member in the chit group conducted by him to the total value of Rs.2,00,000/- and out of the interest amount, the plaintiff could pay the instalments. Lured by the words of the defendant, the plaintiff acceeded to the suggestion. THE defendant in turn had executed two promissory notes dated 12.07.1998 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakhs only) each with 4% interest, after receiving a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff.
(2.) SINCE the defendant did not make any payment and was giving evasive reply , the plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of the amounts due under the said promissory notes. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the defendant denies all the allegations levelled against him. He also denied the execution of two promissory notes and thus he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- "1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the money with interest? 2) Whether the defendant received the loan amount or not? 3) Whether the execution of promissory notes is true? 4) What are all the other reliefs the plaintiff is entitiled to?"
(3.) THE plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and besides examining two other witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 Both the promissory notes were marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. THE defendant also examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.B1 to B8 on his side. THE Trial Court found that the plaintiff has established his case that he had money in his possession and promissory notes were executed by the defendant. Hence the trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to get the decree as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed A.S.No.63 of 2006. The lower appellate court after re-evaluating the evidence adduced by the both sides, found that the plaintiff has clearly established his case before the trial court that the defendant had executed two pronotes and the trial Court has correctly admitted the suit. At the same time, the Appellate Court found that interest granted at 24% from the date of judgments is without any basis and accordingly reduced to 6% per annum. Pending appeal, the plaintiff passed away and the respondents herein were brought on record as his legal representatives before the lower appellate Court.;