Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.236 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nedumangad. The respondent-plaintiff filed the said suit for realisation of money. The court below by the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2013 decreed the suit allowing the plaintiff to realise an amount of Rs.11,36,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the date of suit till realisation. It is aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the court below, the appellant is before us in this appeal.

2. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and perused the judgment and decree of the court below. We have also perused the records of the case made available by the learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The plaint averments, in brief, are as follows; The defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 29.5.2008 agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @18% per annum and executed a promissory note dated 29.5.2008 in his own handwriting in favour of the plaintiff. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not repay the said amount. On 8.9.2010 the plaintiff caused a lawyer's notice to be issued calling upon the defendant to return the aforesaid amount. As the defendant failed to repay, the plaintiff filed the suit for realisation of an amount of Rs.11,36,000/- together with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation, from the defendant and his assets, both movable and immovable.

4. The defendant filed a written statement admitting that, he had borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff, through one Sunil Kumar, who is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff. The defendant further admitted the execution of a promissory note for Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff, which was given to the plaintiff through the said Sunil Kumar. Later, the defendant repaid the said amount of Rs.8,00,000/- together with interest to the plaintiff, through Sunil Kumar, who had agreed to return the promissory note obtained by the plaintiff. After one week, when the defendant approached Sunil Kumar for return of the promissory note, he was informed that it was lost from the hands of the plaintiff. The defendant demanded a written receipt from the plaintiff for repayment of the amount already made. Accordingly, the plaintiff has issued a receipt in favour of the defendant for the amount already received towards principal amount and interest due under the promissory note. Subsequently, the relationship between the defendant and Sunil Kumar got strained and it is at his instigation, the plaintiff filed the suit for realisation of money, misusing the aforesaid promissory note.

5. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. On the side of the defendants Dws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. On an appreciation of the facts of the case and the evidence on record, the court below decreed the suit allowing the plaintiff to realise an amount of Rs.11,36,000/- together with interest @Rs.6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the date of suit till realisation.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, in the absence of an undertaking to pay a certain sum, which is an essential feature of a promissory note under section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Exhibit A1 promissory note is unenforceable. It is well settled that, the question as to whether an instrument is a promissory note or not has to be ascertained by reading the instrument as a whole, regardless of its form or nomenclature. Therefore, mere writing of the words 'Promissory Note' on the top of Exhibit A1 will not make it a promissory note. The real character of Exhibit A1 has to be determined by reading it as a whole. Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, reads thus;

“4. 'Prom