1. The present respondent had instituted a suit against the present appellant in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Virajpet, (henceforth for brevity referred to as “the trial Court”) in O.S.No.104/2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 62,625/- with interest thereupon.

2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court was that, the husband of the defendant by name Sri M.P. Ganapathy, who was an employee of A.P.C.M.S, at Gonikoppa, was known to him and that the said M.P. Ganapathy for his urgent personal necessity, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from him during the month of May 2004. Towards the repayment of the said amount, he had issued a post dated cheque for the said amount dated 21.2.2005, drawn on Canara Bank, Gonikoppa Branch. Once again the said M.P. Ganapathy had borrowed another sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff in the month of August 2004, towards which also, he had issued one more cheque drawn on Gonikoppa Rural Cooperative Bank, Gonikoppa Branch, for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, dated 21.2.2005. According to the plaintiff, defendant had assured to arrange sufficient funds in his account on the date of presentation of the cheques. However, when the plaintiff presented the said cheques for realisation on 21.2.2005, both the cheques were returned unpaid with Banker’s endorsement “insufficient funds”. The defendant being the wife and legal representative of said borrower M.P. Ganapathy, who has succeeded to the property of deceased M.P. Ganapathy and also his assets and service benefits, is liable to pay the debt borrowed by her husband. In that connection, the plaintiff caused two legal notices dated 25.2.2005, calling upon her to clear the loans of her husband. However, the defendant in her reply notice dated 16.3.2005, denied her liability. Stating that the defendant being the wife of the borrower, who has succeeded to the property of the deceased as such she is liable, the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of the sum of Rs. 62,625/-, together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. thereupon.

3. After service of summons, the defendant appeared through her counsel and has filed her written statement, wherein except admitting that she is the wife of late M.P. Ganapathy, who was an employee of A.P.C.M.S., Gonikoppa, had denied all other averments, including borrowal of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 25,000/-, by her husband from the plaintiff. She specifically denied that her husband had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each on two occasions and had issued two post dated cheques towards the repayment of the same. Though she admitted that she is the legal heir of her husband M.P. Ganapathy and had succeeded to his property, assets and service benefits, but categorically denied that she is liable to pay the suit claim towards the alleged borrowal said to have been made by her husband. She further stated that her husband M.P. Ganapathy died on 8.2.2005 under tragic circumstances and after knowing the death of her husband, the plaintiff fraudulently was trying to deceive her by taking advantage of her situation and her helplessness.

4. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether plaintiff proves that deceased M.P. Ganapathy had borrowed loan of Rs. 25,000/- for his legal necessity from him during the month of May 2004, for which he had issued a post dated cheque dated 21.2.2005 on Canara Bank, Gonikoppa Branch?

(2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that deceased M.P. Ganapathy again borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for his legal necessity from him in the month of August 2004 and had issued post dated cheque dated 21.2.2005 on Gonikoppa Rural Cooperative Bank, Gonikoppa branch?

(3) Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is liable to pay interest at 18% p.a. as agreed?

(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim?

(5) What decree or order?

5. In-support of his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got examined three more witnesses