The plaintiff in Os 262/91 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad, is the appellant in this appeal. The said suit filed by the respondents herein was one for realization of a sum of Rs.30,000/- with interest thereon.

2. The case of the plaintiff can be summarized as follows:-

Agreeing to repay with 18% interest per annum on demand when needed by the plaintiff or his order, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was received in cash by the defendants for their business and the defendants executed Ext.A1, promissory note in the handwriting of the 2nd defendant on 14.1.1989 in favour of the plaintiff. Even after repeated demands for the said amount together with interest directly and through Ext.A2 lawyer notice dt.23.5.1991, the defendants have failed to pay the same, but instead caused the lawyer notice sent in Ext.A3 cover to be returned unserved. Hence the suit.

3. Defendants 1 and 2, who are father and son respectively, resisted the suit by filing separate written statements. The 1st defendant contended inter alia as follows:-

The 1st defendant has not signed the suit promissory note, nor has he received any consideration thereunder. The purported signature of this defendant in the promissory not is a forgery. Even if the 2nd defendant has executed a promissory note, it has been rendered invalid by reason of material alteration and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. The statement in the promissory note that the money was borrowed for the purpose of trade of the defendants is incorrect since this defendant has never conducted any trade. This defendant has not received any lawyer notice from the plaintiff. The alleged return of the notice might have been stage managed by the plaintiff so as to avoid a denial of the same by this defendant. This defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount and there has been no financial transaction or dealings between this defendant and the plaintiff.

4. The 2nd defendant in his written statement raised the following contentions:-

The plaint allegation that the defendants borrowed Rs.30,000/- in cash for the purpose of their business on the terms set out therein, is false. This defendants had sought a loan of Rs.15000/- from the plaintiff for a temporary need. The plaintiff insisted that if the said loan was to be paid, both the defendants will have to execute a joint promissory note for Rs.30,000/- and, as narrated by the plaintiff, this defendant wrote down a promissory note and signed the same and handed over it to the plaintiff, when the plaintiff made it clear that the loan amount would be given only if the 1st defendant also affixed his signature to the promissory note, this defendant agreed to fetch the 1st defendant. This defendant there after informed the 1st defendant about the stipulation by the plaintiff. But the 1st defendant refused to sign the document. On the next day itself this defendant informed the plaintiff about the unwillingness of the 1st defendant to sign the promissory note. This was what transpired in the matter. The 1st defendant has never gone to the plaintiff, nor has he affixed his signature to the promissory note as alleged. At the time when this defendant affixed his signature to the promissory note, no stamps were affixed to the same. This defendants has not received any amount by way of loan from the plaintiff. Neither this defendant not the 1st defendant has any trade or business. Since the promissory note was an incomplete one in which the 1st defendant had not put his signature also, this defendant did not consider it necessary to get back the document from the plaintiff. The promissory note relied on by the plaintiff is a fraudulent one amounting to forgery. It is also invalid due to material alteration. It is not supported by consideration. Since this defendant has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, this defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. This defendant has not received any notice, nor has he sent back any such notice