JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second appeal filed under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2019 made in A.S.No. 77 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Ulunderpet reversal of the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2017 made in O.S.No. 26 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet.)

1. The present Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2019 made in A.S.No. 77 of 2018 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Ulundurpet reversing the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2017 passed in O.S.No. 26 of 2013 by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet.

2. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present appeal, can be stated as under.

3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in the Original Suit, can be referred hereinafter.

4. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No. 26 of 2013 before the Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), the principal amount is Rs.50,000 along with the interest at 12% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realization.

5. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-(rupees Fifty Thousand only) from her on 19.07.2004 to meet out his family expenses and executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of Rs.1.00 per Rs.100/-. On 01.07.2007, the defendant made a part payment of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and also again on 03.06.2010, he paid another Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) towards part payment of the borrowed amount. Thereafter, despite the several requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant has failed to repay the suit amount, which prompted the plaintiff to issue a legal notice on 24.12.2012, but there was no reply. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the above suit.

6. Defending the suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant filed a Written Statement, inter-alia that denying the borrowal of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.07.2004 and execution of the suit pronote as well as subsequent part payments made on 01.07.2007 and 03.06.2010 towards pronote amount.

7. According to the defendant, he approached the husband of the plaintiff, one Arumugam, for a loan of Rs.25,000/- on behalf of the one Elumalai who is employed in his house. The plaintiff’s husband informed the defendant that as per the village practice, he has to execute pronote for Rs.50,000/- towards loan of Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly of on behalf of the said Elumalai, the defendant executed a pronote for Rs.50,000/- in the name of the plaintiff for the loan of Rs.25,000/- received by the Elumalai. As such, according to the defendant, the pronote is only valid for Rs.25,000/- and there was no consideration of Rs.50,000/-. It is also stated by the defendant that plaintiff’s husband demanded interest at the rate of Rs.3/- per Rs.100/- for Rs.25,000/- and obtained a signature from the defendant, stating that the limitation period for the pronote is likely going to be end. But the defendant did not pay any amount towards part payment and made endorsements.

8. The plaintiff’s husband fabricated a signature of the defendant and made entry on 01.07.2007. The borrower Elumalai paid the principal amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest of Rs.35,000/- and totally Rs.60,000/- to the plaintiff’s husband and requested him to return the pronote. But, the plaintiff’s husband informed that the pronote was already barred by limitation and hence, the defendant did not get back pronote. The plaintiff’s husband is in the habit of filing many Civil and Criminal cases by fabricating the documents and like this he fabricated the endorsements dated 03.06.2010 and filed the present suit. The defendant denied his signature dated 03.06.2010 contained in the pronote, with these contentions the defendant so