JUDGMENT :

N. Seshasayee, J.

1. The defendants who are partially successful in resisting the suit laid for recovery of sum of Rs. 1.25 lakhs, which the plaintiff alleges 'as having been advanced to the former, but suffered a decree for the entire suit claim before the first appellate court, have preferred this second appeal. Parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial court.

2. Plaintiffs case is straight forward, and may now be stated:

On 01.4.2001, under Ext. A1 promissory note, the defendants have borrowed Rs. 1.25 lakhs, and have agreed to repay the same with interest @ 12% per annum. The said promissory note is in the handwriting of the second defendant. The plaintiff has been demanding the repayment of the sum advanced, but the defendants were continuously unenthusiastic about the repayment.

Therefore, plaintiff was constrained to prefer Ext. A4, complaint to the police. While so, on 12.4.2003, shortly prior to the plaintiff preferring Ext. A4 complaint, the defendants issued Ext. A-2 notice through their counsel, alleging that under Ext. A1 promissory note only Rs. 75,000/- was received as consideration, and towards the repayment of which the defendants have already paid Rs. 56,250/-. Thereafter, the defendants issued Ext. A3 notice dated 27.9.2003 reiterating the same allegations. It is in this circumstance, plaintiff issued Ext. A5 notice dated 04.03.2004, to which, the defendants have issued Ext. B1 dated 13.3.2004, reiterating the same contention. It is in these circumstances, plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of Rs. 1.25 lakhs with interest at 9% throughout.

3. In his written statement the second defendant has alleged:

That the first defendant is his sister, that they both are agriculturists, that to meet certain expenses in connection with their agricultural activity, they had borrowed Rs. 75,000 from the plaintiff, that only at the instance of the plaintiff and her husband a promissory note was executed for Rs. 1.25 lakhs, and that the promissory note was not fully supported by consideration. Further, they have been paying interest at 36% per annum, towards which he has paid interest @ Rs. 2,250/- p.m., and had accordingly paid Rs. 56,250/- towards interest alone.

While so, in April, 2003, plaintiff insisted the defendants to close the loan, but the defendants could not. Hence, on 10.4.2003, the plaintiff and her husband brought in some rowdy elements to intimidate the defendants, following which, the defendants were constrained to prefer Ext. A2 notice dated 12.04.2003 to the plaintiff and Inspector of Police, Villupuram West Police Station. It is in this background, the plaintiff has issued an innocent looking Ext. A5 notice dated 04.3.2004, to which, the defendants have sent their Ext. B1 reply dated 13.3.2004 promptly.

4.1. The dispute went to trial where the plaintiff did not enter the box, but her husband was examined as P.W. 1 Both the defendants were examined as D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 respectively, and have also examined one Shanumugam as D.W. 3. The documents that the parties relied on have already been introduced.

4.2. The issue before the trial Court was whether Ext. A1 promissory note was not supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- as contended by the defendants. The trial Court primarily relied on Ext. A3 notice dated 27.09.2003, which the defendants had; addressed to the plaintiff, raising the said contention. It is further indicated in Ext. A3 that the defendants have preferred a complaint before the police. This is repeated even in Ext. A2 reply notice dated 12.4.2003, reiterating the same position. Neither of these notices of the defendants were replied to by the plaintiff and this has tilted the advantage in favour of the defendants for the trial court to hold that what is not disputed at the earliest point of time constituted an admission. Secondly, it has pointed o