The doctrine of 'lifting the veil' was applied to see the reality and render justice.

1. This Second appeal is focused by the defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Principal Subordiante Judge, Villupuram, in confirming and enlarging the scope of the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2007 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Villupuram, in O.S.No.446 of 2005, which was one for recovery of money, by allowing the cross-appeal filed by the plaintiff.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(i) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit as against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.85,150/- based on the original cause of action concerning the pro-note-Ex.A1, by contending that on 4.5.2003 during morning hours, a sum of Rs.65,000/-(rupees sixty five thousand) was borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note(Ex.A1) during the afternoon of the same date.

(ii) According to the plaintiff, since the word 'on demand' is not found spelt out in the promissory note, he was constrained to fall back on the original cause of action, which arose on the morning of 4.5.2003.

Accordingly the plaintiff would pray for decreeing the suit.

4. Per contra, the defendant in a bid to slap down and pulverise the averments in the plaint, would put forth and set forth his averments in the written statement, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

(i) There was no lending and borrowal as alleged in the plaint.

(ii) An agreement to sell between the plaintiff and his two brothers being the land owners on the one side and the defendant-the prospective purchaser on the other side emerged on 14.7.2002 relating to an immovable property situated in Villupuram; the total sale consideration agreed was Rs.1,45,000/-(Rupees one lakh forty five thousand), of which, a sum of Rs.15,000/-(rupees fifteen thousand) was paid by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and his two brothers; thereafter, the sale deed dated 28.1.2004 emerged and at that time, the agreed remaining sale consideration was paid and the sale deed was executed.

(iii) However, before the execution of the sale deed, because of the delay in the sale deed being executed by the plaintiff and his brothers in favour of the defendant, on 4.5.2003 the suit pro note-Ex.A1 emerged and in fact, under that there was no real lending and borrowing took place.

(iv) At the time of the execution of the sale deed, the defendant demanded the plaintiff to return back the suit pro-note, but the latter assured that he would return it after some time. Hoping and believing that the plaintiff would keep up his promise, the defendant kept quiet.

Accordingly, the defendant would pray for the dismissal of the suit.

5. Whereupon issues were framed. Up went the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on his side.

6. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit ordering the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.65,000/-(sixty five thousand) with 9% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and 6% interest per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

7. Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant preferred the appeal, and the cross-appeal was filed by the plaintiff. Whereupon, the judgment was delivered by the first appellate Court accepting the cross-appeal of the plaintiff and dismissing the appeal of the defendant. Precisely the first appellate Court awarded pre-suit interest also in favour of the plaintiff.

8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, this second appeal has been filed on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantia