Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Appellants/Defendants have filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2000 in A.S.No.47 of 1984 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 19.10.1983 in O.S.No.1255 of 1982 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Virudhachalam.

2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.47 of 1984, dated 11.02.2000, has inter alia observed that 'the plea that suit Promissory Note has been created in a forgery manner, is not accepted and in fact, the suit Promissory Note is supported by consideration and resultantly, affirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in the main suit by dismissing the Appeal with costs.'

14.Admittedly, in the Plaint, the Respondent/Plaintiff has prayed for passing of a Decree for Rs.8,890/-(Principal sum of Rs.7,000/- and interest for the period from 01.10.1979 till 30.09.1982 of Rs.1,890/-) together with subsequent interest along with costs and for realisation of the Decree amount from and out of the joint family properties in the hands of the Appellants/Defendants.

15.In the Written Statement filed by the 1st Appellant/1st Defendant (adopted by the 2nd Appellant/2nd Defendant), it is mentioned that the suit Promissory Note is a 'piece of rank forgery' and as per the Promissory Note, no amount is due to be paid to the Respondent/Plaintiff and the consideration mentioned in the Promissory Note is false and also that the Promissory Note is not a valid one.

16.Further, in the Written Statement, it is also made mention of that on 01.10.1979, the loan has not taken for Rs.7,000/- for the 1st Appellant/1st Defendant's daughter Suseela's marriage and for purchasing of pair of bullocks. Also, it is also stated in the Written statement that the Respondent/Plaintiff along with his relative Rajavannian and others have fabricated a Sale Deed in respect of a land to one Neyveli Selvaraj and the Vigilance Police has filed a case before the Ulunthoorpettai First Class Magistrate Court etc. The 2nd Appellant/2nd Defendant is an unnecessary party to the suit since the suit Promissory Note is a 'piece of rank forgery' and the suit has to be dismissed with the compensatory costs of the 2nd Appellant/2nd Defendant. There is no cause of action for filing of the suit by the Respondent/Plaintiff. Also as per Section 35(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, the compensatory costs will have to be awarded to the Appellants since the Respondent/Plaintiff has filed a vexatious suit against them.

18.Expatiating his submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants relies on the recitals of Ex.A.1 Promissory Note, dated 01.10.1979 to the effect that in Ex.A.1 Promissory Note, there are recitals found in Tamil to the effect that the 1st Appellant/1st Defendant has availed the purported suit loan of Rs.7,000/- for the purpose of the second daughter Suseela's marriage expense and for purchasing of pair of bullocks.

19.The substance of the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants is that the averment in Para 4(b) of the Plaint has referred to supra and the recitals in Tamil mentioned as aforesaid in Ex.A.1 Promissory Note dated 01.10.1979 are diametrically, symmetrically and logically opposed to each other and the recitals mutually destroy the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff, which clearly unerringly point out that the version projected by the Respondent, cannot be a true one. To put it differently, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants submits that the stand taken by the Appellants/Defendants in the Written statement that the suit Promissory Note is a 'piece of rank forgery' and that they have not executed the suit Promissory Note in question, appears to be a probable and acceptable one and therefore, prays for allowing the Second Appeal.