TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 promissory note. Since the defendant did not repay the loan, the plaintiff issued Ex.A.2 notice dated 09.05.2013. Without complying with the demand set out in the notice, the defendant issued reply notice dated 12.05.2013(Ex.A.4). The defendant denied the notice version in toto and came out with a counter version. Therefore, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.62 of 2013 on 29.01.2019. After entering appearance, the appellant filed written statement controverting the plaint averments. Based on the divergent pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the necessary issues. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the attestors of the promissory note, namely, Sathishkumar and Shajahan as P.W.2 and P.W.3. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15 were marked. Defendant Reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not only controverted the notice averments but also came out with a counter version in her reply notice dated 12.05.2013(Ex.A.4). In the reply notice, the appellant had challenged the financial capacity of the plaintiff to lend a huge sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to her. The defendant also pointed out that she was under some kind of influence of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff made use of her condition and took away her jewellery and also a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The defendant also stated that in this regard she had given a complaint before Iyempettai police station on 30.04.2013. When the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, his financial capacity and wherewithal to lend a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was specifically challenged. In response the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loans from the private finance institution even for sums as small as Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 13,000/-. The plaintiff has nowhere stated as to when the defendant made a request for availing loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Ex.A.11 instead of strengthening the case of the plaintiff, falsifies his testimony. 9. Ex.A.1 has been signed by two persons, namely, Sathishkumar and Shajahan. They were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. Both of them admitted during the course of cross examination that the signatures put by them before the Court was at variance with the signatures attributed to them in Ex.A.1. P.W.3 Shajahan would state that the defendant signed Ex.A.1 in violet ink. However when confronted with Ex.A.1, he admitted that it was signed in black ink. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... police station, Thanjavur. In the said notice, the plaintiff's wife has stated that the defendant had given a false complaint against the plaintiff on 30.04.2013 before Iyempettai police station as if the plaintiff had misappropriated her 40 sovereigns of gold. It is clear that even before the issuance of the demand notice, the defendant had already gone to the local police. When the plaintiff was summoned for enquiry, he appeared and the police have advised the parties to resolve the matter before the civil Court. Only thereafter, the suit notice dated 09.05.2013 came to be issued. The defendant had also marked Ex.B.13 which is a medical prescription dated 15.05.2010. From the said evidence, one can come to the conclusion that the def....