Suit filed on basis of promissory note decreed.

The above second appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No.268 of 1981, who lost before both the courts below.

.2. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,518 with future interest at 9% p.a. on Rs.3,000 from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realisation.

3. The case of the plaintiff/respondent before the trial court was that the appellant/ defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000 from the plaintiff on 5. 1979 and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 9% p.a. on demand. It is stated that inspite of the demand made and the notice issued, the defendant not only filed to pay the amount, but issued a reply containing false and untrue allegations driving the plaintiff to the necessity of the suit.

4. The defendant/ appellant filed a written statement contending that the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff, that he did not execute any promissory note, that the promissory note is a fabricated one and the plaintiff had no funds to lend such an amount and the defendant also did not have any necessity to borrow from the plaintiff on 5. 1979. It was also said that in fact the plaintiff was in need of money and for the purpose of meeting his needs, he sold his property to the defendant. The defendant also claimed that during the month of May, 1979, he was getting a sum of Rs.500 from one Soosai Mariyan and Rs. 100 p.m. as rent for his building and the plaintiff, who is working under the said Soosai Mariyan, has filed the suit at his instance and instigation.

5. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a reply contending that the plaintiff during the last 10 years prior to suit, has taken more than 13 sale deeds, that he is owning 2 acre of coconut garden and 30 cents of paddy lands, that he has got a house and 50 cents of coconut thope as ancestral property and the defendant has taken on more than one occasion loans from Tiruchencode Co-operative Society to the tune of Rs.5,000, that he did not repay the loans and an award has been passed against him and attachment proceedings were initiated for realisation of that loan and the plaintiff also was possessed of Rs.6,000 in liquid cash obtained under the sale agreement and has also purchased a house with two cents and 575 sq.links of site on 9. 1979. It is only because the defendant was already a tenant, and wanted to purchase the premises, the building as sold to him and the sale was not on account of any need for money by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also denied any connection with Soosai Mariyan, as stated in the written statement.

6. On the above claims and counter claims, the suit came to be tried and on the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined, including the plaintiff as P.W.2 and the scribe of the suit promissory note as P.W. 1 and another witness. On the side of the defendant, the defendant got himself examined as D.W. 1. The plaintiff has marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and the defendants marked on his side Exs.B-1 to B-4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit, rejecting the defence put forward by the defendant and holding that the suit promissory note is a genuine one and it has been sufficiently proved that the defendant executed the promissory note and consequently, the plaintiff has to succeed. Of course, while passing the judgment, the learned trial Judge appears to have observed in paragraph 14 that the decree is passed for realisation of Rs.3,518 with future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.3,000 from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realisation together with costs from the defendant ‘and his movable and immovable assets. ‘Apparently on that observation, the decree appear to have been drafted as though a charge has been created over the movable and immovable assets of the defendant.

7. Aggrieved, the defendan