2022 (1) TMI 803

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are called as per their respective litigative status before the trial Court. 3. The laconic averments made in the plaint are as follows: 3.1. On 03.01.2002, the defendant approached the plaintiff to lend a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose of construction of his house and also agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and in lieu of the debt, he has also agreed to execute a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff lent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the defendant and the defendant also executed a promissory note to repay the said amount with 12% interest per annum and received the same. Afterwards the defendant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....placed before him, the learned Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved her case and accordingly, the suit was decreed as prayed for. In the appeal, the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram confirmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved over the same, the appellant/defendant is before this Court. 7. At the time of admission, this Court had formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law: (i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (ii) Whether the suit promissory note Ex.A1 is materially altered? (iii) Whether the finding of the Courts below that the appellant has failed to disprove the signature....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the evidence let in by P.W.1 and P.W.2 is sufficient to accept the execution of the pro-note. 11. The lapses found in the evidence given by P.W.1 and P.W.2 are that they categorically admitted in their cross examination as the signature of the defendant found in Ex.B1 (suit pro-note), written statement and the vakalat are appears to be different. In other words, in respect of the signature of the defendant found in the proof affidavit filed by him and in respect of the signature found in the written statement, the defendant himself gave evidence as the signature found in those documents, are not belonged to him. Therefore, the said evidence given by the defendant is quite clear that he has not approached the trial Court with clear case....