Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

37.The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Questions of Law No. 3 and 4:-

The case of the Appellants is that the Respondents 1 and 2 had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 14.4.1993 from the Appellant/ Plaintiff(since deceased) and executed Ex.A1-Promissory Note and that as on date of filing of the plaint that the Respondents/Defendants were due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.67,700/- together with interest at 12% p.a.

38.The stand of the Respondents/Defendants is that they had not executed Ex.A1-Suit Promissory Note and that they had not received the consideration and also that the signatures found in the promissory note do not belong to them. In short, the Respondents/Defendants had taken a defence that they had not executed the suit promissory note in question to and in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff (deceased). Further more, the Respondents/Defendants had taken a stand that the suit promissory note was a rank forgery.

47.DW1 (in his cross examination) had deposed that he had known the Appellant/Plaintiff as Taxi Cleaner at the Taxistand and after seeing him at the Taxistand, today only he had seen him in Court and that a suit loan notice had come to him and his wife, for which they had not given any reply, he had no enmity with Appellant/Plaintiff and he had no connection with the office proceedings initiated against PW1.

48.Ex.A1 is the promissory note dated 14.04.1993 purportedly executed by Respondents 1 and 2/Defendants 1 and 2 to and in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff (later deceased) for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The rate of interest specified in Ex.A1-Promissory Note is one rupee interest for Rs.100 per month viz., 12% p.a. on behalf of the Appellants/Plaintiffs. It is categorically contended before this Court that the First Respondent/First Defendant in his own handwriting has written the recitals of Ex.A1-Promissory Note. Therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the Appellants/Plaintiffs that the plea raised on behalf of the Respondents/Defendants that Ex.A1-Promissory Note is a forgery one and that it has not executed by him and his wife viz., the Second Respondent/Second Defendant, is untenable and incorrect one. In this connection, it is relevant for this Court to narrate the evidence of DW1 (First Respondent/First Defendant) that he along with his wife have availed loan from Indian Overseas bank, Bank of Tanjore , Tamil Nadu Bank, Central Bank, Bank of Madura and other than Bank of Madura, loan in respect of other bank loans, suits have been filed and decrees have been passed and that before the trial Court in O.S.No.126 of 1983 his property has been brought for auction.