C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 63 of 2014, passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Thanjavur, dated 20.04.2015.

2. The original suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,18,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Eighteen Thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and for costs.

3. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff had filed the above original suit which was tried by the III Additional District Court, Thanjavur, seeking a judgment and decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,18,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Eighteen Thousand only) from the defendant together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and for costs. The suit was based on a promissory note.

4. It had been stated that the plaintiff and the defendant are close relations. The husband of the plaintiff was employed in a foreign country and he used to send money regularly to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff saved. The defendant had constructed a house and had also performed the marriage of her daughter. She had to borrow money for the said purpose. Consequently, the plaintiff had advanced a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- on 14.05.2014 and the defendant had also executed a promissory note on the same day. On 16.05.2014, the defendant sold a property to one K.Saravanan. The plaintiff demanded return of the amounts advanced by her. The defendant stated that she would sell the house and repay the amounts. The plaintiff was also questioned by her husband regarding lending of money to the defendant. In spite of further demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not make payment. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 24.06.2014. The defendant received the notice, but did not reply. Consequently, the suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,18,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Eighteen Thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and for costs.

5. In the written statement, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was the President of a Women Self-Help Group, which had about 20 members. As President, on 14.05.2014, the plaintiff arranged a loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) from HDFC Bank and gave a sum of Rs. 22,500/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) to each member. At that time, signatures were obtained in blank stamp papers. It had been stated that the defendant had earlier made unlawful gain of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from the Women Self-Help Group. This was questioned by the defendant who held out that a criminal case would be filed. It had been stated that the plaintiff, her husband and her mother came to the house of the defendant and assaulted her, her sister and daughter on 10.06.2014. A police complaint was also lodged in this regard. It had been stated that writings had been filled up in the blank signed stamp papers available with the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that it was totally false to say that the defendant had executed a promissory note as stated in the plaint on 14.05.2014 for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only). The other allegations in the plaint were also denied. It was further stated that a reply was sent on 10.07.2014 to the Advocate notice. It had been stated that the plaintiff had not come to the Court with a true case and consequently, it was pleaded that the suit should be dismissed.

6. The parties went into trial and the learned III Additional District Judge, Thanjavur, had framed the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the signature of the defendant in the promissory note was signed in the circumstances as stated by the defendant in the written statement?

2. Whether the consideration has passed for the said promissory note?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?

4. To what relief, the parties are entitled?

7. During trial, the plaint