S.MANIKUMAR
R. Arumugham – Appellant
Versus
Natesan – Respondent
1. The Second Appeal arises out of a reversing judgment on the suit for recovery on a Promissory Note. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. According to him, for family and urgent expenses, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 21.09.2001 and promised to repay the same with interest at Rs.1,000/-per month. Inspite of repeated demands and notice dated 06.11.2003, the principal with interest to the tune of Rs.30,331/- remained unpaid and hence the suit. The defendant denied the execution of the Promissory Note and receipt of consideration. According to him, the defendant was engaged in chit transaction and that the plaintiff had taken a chit. He further submitted that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was payable under the chit transaction which he was always ready and willing to pay. As he was unwell, he could not reply to the notice. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed three issues for consideration,
(i) as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for payment of the amount under the Promissory Note with interest?
(ii) as to whether the suit has been instituted in a forged Pro note and therefore, to be dismissed or not?
(iii) what relief the parties
K.P.O. Moideenkutty Hajee v Pappu Manjooran 1996 (8) SCC 586
N. Abdul Azeez v S. Mohamed Hanifa AIR 1997 Mad 1
Subbiah v Alagappan [AIR 1962 Mad 218]
Kamala v K.A. Kunjithapatham 1999 (3) LW 872
P. Talamalai Chetty v Rathinasamy AIR 1998 Mad. 23
K. Mani v Elumalai 2002 (3) CTC 598=2002-3-LW 845
Mohideenkutty Hajee v Pappu Manjooran (1996 (8) SCC 586)
Natarajan v Marappa Gounder 2004 (4) CTC 729=2004-4-LW 482
Meenakshisundaram v Rangasami 1996 (1) MLJ 297
Ramasamy v Kamalammal 2007 (5) MLJ 1005
T.N. Boopathy v T.A. Sattu AIR 2002 Mad 177
Ramasami Moopar v Ramaswami Moopanar 2002 (4) LW 360
N.S. Arumugam v Trishul Traders & ors. 2006 (2) LW 167
A. Kannivel Chettiar v M.K. Govindaraja Mudaliar 2006 (3) CTC 23
Official Receiver v Abdul Shankoor [AIR 1965 SC 920]
Soundrammal v Vasantha AIR 2001 Mad 177
Mohammed Ali v Abdul Sinab 2001 (1) CTC 281=2001-2-LW 643
Samikannu Naicker v Sigamant 2002 (2) CTC 140=2002-3-LW 692
Kundan Lal Rallaram v Custodian Evacuee Property AIR 1961 SC 1316
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.