The enforceability of a promissory note and the principle of clean hands in legal proceedings.

1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 21.1.2008, made in A.S.No.31 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Panruti, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 28.7.2006, made in O.S.No.31 of 1997, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.

2. The plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.31 of 1997, are the appellants in the present second appeal. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents herein.

3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit, in O.S.No.31 of 1997, praying for a decree, declaring the plaintiffs right, in respect of the suit property and to direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs, free from obstructions and to direct the determination of future mesne profits, by way of separate proceedings, under Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and for costs.

4. The suit property had, originally, belonged to Thangavel Chettiar, the paternal uncle of the first plaintiff. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the minor daughters of the first plaintiff. Thangavel Chettiar had executed a settlement deed, in respect of the suit property, on 19.11.1979, giving life estate to the first plaintiff and thereafter, vesting the property, absolutely, with the male issues, and in their absence, on the female issues. As the first plaintiff had no male issue, the property had vested with the plaintiffs 2 to 4. It had also been stated that, on 12.9.1987, the first plaintiff had borrowed a sum of Rs.7000/-, from the first defendant, under a promissory note. On the same day, the first defendant had wanted to enjoy the suit property, in lieu of the interest payable, under the said promissory note. As such, the first defendant had taken possession of the suit property, and as an evidence of taking possession the said property the first defendant had executed a Vardamanam, dated 12.9.1987, in favour of the first plaintiff. The said document had been written and attested by three persons belonging to Pudupettai and Bandarakottai villages.

5. It had also been stated that the promissory note, dated 12.9.1987, had become time barred and unenforceable. Hence, the first defendant is not entitled to continue in possession of the suit property and therefore, her possession had become unlawful. In such circumstances, plaintiffs 2 to 4 had issued a notice to the first defendant, on 17.2.1996, asking her to surrender possession of the suit property to the said plaintiffs. The first defendant had issued a reply, on 17.4.1996, making a false contention that the suit property had been leased out to her father-in-law, Lakshumana Padayachi, by the original owner, Thangavel Chettiar, on an annual lease of Rs.100/-. After the death of Lakshumana Padayachi, her husband Kanagaraju continued to be a lessee.

6. The plaintiffs had further stated that the first plaintiff had, orally, relinquished his life estate in favour of plaintiffs 2 to 4, in the year, 1995. It has also been stated by the plaintiffs that, neither Lakshumana Padayachi, nor Kanagaraju, was in possession of the suit property, as a cultivating tenant. The claim of the defendants that there was a lease agreement had also been denied by the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs had filed the suit, in O.S.No.31 of 1997, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.

7. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, the averments and the allegations made on behalf of the plaintiffs had been denied. It had also been stated that the claim of the plaintiffs that there was a settlement deed, dated 19.11.1979, is false. Further, it is false to state that the defendants had taken possession of the suit property, in lieu of the interest for the amount of Rs.7000/-borrowed from the defendant, by way of a promissory note, dated 12.9.1987. The said promissory note is in no way connected with the suit property. On the other hand, the defendant had claimed that her father-in-law, Laks