A. Selvam, J.

1. Challenge in this Appeal Suit is to the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2011, passed in O.S.No.718 of 2011, by the V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The respondent herein, as plaintiff, has instituted O.S.No.718 of 2011, on the file of the trial Court, praying to pass a money decree in his favour, wherein, the present appellant has been arrayed as sole defendant.

3. The material averments made in the plaint are that the defendant has borrowed a sum of 60,000/- Canadian Dollars on 23.02.1995, from the plaintiff, so as to meet his urgent commitments. The plaintiff has paid the same by way of a bank draft, bearing No.068529973, dated 23.02.1995, drawn on Canadian bank of Commerce, Parkway Forest, North York, ONT. The defendant is bound to return the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, within few months. The defendant has failed to keep up his promise. On 28.4.1996, the defendant has paid interest from April 1995 to 3rd April 1996 and he has also paid an amount of Canadian Dollars of 10,800/- per month at 18% interest and not 24%. The defendant has also paid interest from April 1996 to April 1997 on 04.04.1997. Further interest is payable. Since the defendant has not discharged his liability, a legal notice has been issued to him and he has also received the same. But he has not chosen to give any reply notice. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the relief sought therein.

4. The material averments made in the written statement are that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant. It is false to aver that the defendant has received a sum of 60,000/- Canadian Dollars on 23.02.1995 from the plaintiff to meet out his urgent needs. It is also equally false to say that the defendant has paid interest on various dates to the plaintiff. It is also false to aver that the defendant is bound to pay 24% interest to the plaintiff. In the plaint, it has not been specifically stated as to where the defendant has received the said sum of 60,000/- Canadian Dollars and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

5. In the reply statement filed by the plaintiff, the averments made in the written statement are specifically denied.

6. On the basis of divergent pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the present Appeal Suit has been preferred, at the instance of the defendant, as appellant.

7. The consistent case of the plaintiff is that on 23.2.1995, so as to meet urgent needs, the defendant has borrowed a sum of 60,000/- Canadian Dollars from the plaintiff and also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The defendant has agreed to discharge his liability within few months and despite of repeated request, the defendant has paid interest at the rate of 18% and not at the rate of 24% per annum. After paying interest for certain period, the defendant has stopped payment of interest and also the principal amount. Under the said circumstances, a legal notice has been issued and even after receipt of the same, the defendant has not cared to discharge his liability and therefore, the present suit has been instituted for the relief sought therein.

8. The defence put forth on the side of the defendant is that the defendant has not received anything from the plaintiff much less on 23.2.1995. The alleged subsequent payments of interest are nothing but false; the defendant has not executed any document in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the suit claim is nothing but false and the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief sought in the plaint and therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.

9. As mentioned supra, the trial Court, after considering the available evidence on record, has decreed the suit as prayed for.

10. The l