A.S.VENKATACHALAMOORTHY, J. - (1.)The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.190 of 1986 on the file of Subordinate Court, Karur is the appellant herein.
(2.)The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is his wife's cousin brother and that he used to visit plaintiff's father-in-law's place. On one such occasion, during the year 1981, the defendant approached the plaintiff for some loan as he desired to start a new business. According to the plaintiff, the defendant in fact asked the plaintiff to join the business, which he intended to start, at Palani. In or about July, 1981, plaintiff expressed his willingness for starting carpet business at Palani. Thereafter on 19.8.1981, the defendant came to Karur and asked plaintiff to give Rs.25,000/- for purchasing materials for manufacturing carpets, namely, looms, yarn, etc. The further case of the plaintiff is that even though at that time he did not have the necessary funds, with a view to help the defendant, he (plaintiff) borrowed Rs.15,000/- from one Kandasamy and Rs.10,000/- from one Periasamy and paid the same to the defendant on 19.8.1981 at Karur. At the time of payment, one A.Chinnappa Gounder was also present. After receiving the money, defendant assured to the plaintiff that he will start the business within a month and inform the same to the plaintiff. On a further request made by the defendant, the plaintiff paid another sum of Rs.10,000/-, which amount was paid by the plaintiff by borrowing the same from one Subramani of Karur. Thus in all, defendant received Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff viz., Rs.25,000/- on 19.8.1981 and Rs.10,000/- on 18.9.1981. The plaintiff, who happened to go to Palani after two months, came to know that the defendant has not taken any steps to start the business and when enquired the defendant, he only stated that he will start the business soon. Further case of the plaintiff is that even thereafter the defendant failed to start business, for which the defendant replied that he is not having funds and that he will return the amounts received from Plaintiff for business, within six months. On 19.4.1982, the defendant wrote a letter evidencing the above payments. Several requests made by the plaintiff to the defendant to return the amount, failed to yield any result. Plaintiff in fact also preferred a complaint to Karur Police on 20.1.1983 that the defendant has cheated him. As in spite of repeated demands and requests the defendant has not paid the amount, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(3.)The defendant resisted the suit inter alia contending that he is an agriculturist, having enough lands to cultivate and that he never asked the plaintiff to help him to start business, as claimed by the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff that the amounts contributed to the defendant to start carpet business at Palani has been denied. According to the defendant, he was in need of money for agricultural operations and deepening well and only for that purpose he approached the plaintiff, whose family members are conducting Finance Corporations and in which plaintiff also has a share. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff obliged to him to the extent of Rs.35,000/- as debt for agricultural operations and the same is repayable with interest. The defendant admitted having written a letter to the plaintiff on 19.4.1982. According to the defendant, he paid a sum of Rs.4,700/- in the month of May, 1982 and balance of Rs.37,000/- in the first week of September, 1982 at Karur. As the defendant did not execute any document for borrowing, he did not insist for any voucher or receipt from the plaintiff while he repaid those amounts. According to the defendant, he having discharged the entire liability by making those payments, he is not liable to pay any amount and that the suit has been instituted only because of subsequent misunderstanding. A contention has also been raised by the defendant in the written statement that the suit is speculative and frivolous one. The plaintiff, having filed the suit by paying a Court fee of Re.1/- when he had sufficient funds at the time of presentation of plaint, the presentation of plaint cannot be said to be proper one. The plaint, though was returned for compliance the same was re-presented after a period of one year 11 months and 28 days and for which the plaintiff has not given any explanation.