JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 29.01.2013 passed in A.S.No.67 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 30.03.2009 passed in O.S.No.51 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur.)

1. This second appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree, dated 27.10.2014 passed in A.S.No.67 of 2011, by the Principal District Court, Thanjavur, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 30.03.2009 passed in O.S.No.51 of 2007 by the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur, are reversed.

2. The husband of the first appellant, viz., Rajendran, as plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2007 on the file of the trial Court for recovery of money of a sum of Rs.1,35,100/- along with interest, wherein, the respondent has been shown as the defendant.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court.

4. In the plaint it is averred that on 23.02.2004, the defendant and her husband had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for their family expenses and promised to repay the said amount borrowed with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the plaintiff and executed a promissory note. Till the date of filing of the suit, the defendant has not paid either the principal or the interest. When the plaintiff has requested to pay the amount, the defendant delayed in paying the same. In the mean time, the defendant's husband passed away and the defendant had sought for some time to repay the same. Since the defendant had not paid the amount, on 07.03.2007 the plaintiff sent a legal notice and the same was also received by the defendant and sent a reply with untenable averments. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

5. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendant, the defendant refuted the averments made in the plaint. The defendant had never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff on 23.03.2004 and executed any promissory note as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the husband of one Thilagavathy, a professional money-lender. The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the wife of the plaintiff in the year 2000 and the defendant and her husband executed a blank promissory note in favour of the said Thilagavathy in the year 2000 and also repaid the amount in monthly installments at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month from the year 2001 in two years. Thereafter, the defendant had also paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the said Thilagavathy, who had acknowledged the same. But, she demanded more money from the defendant which resulted in a criminal complaint filed by the said Thilagavathy against the defendant. The District Crime Branch Police enquired the matter and directed the said Thilagavathy to seek her remedy before the civil Court. Thereafter, the defendant issued a notice dated 24.09.2003 to the said Thilagavathy calling upon her to return the promissory note executed by the defendant in her favour. She never returned the blank promissory note. The plaintiff's wife had set up her husband by filling the blank pronote in the name of the plaintiff and he had filed the suit without any basis and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one Senthil Kumar was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.10 were marked.

7. On the basis of the rival pleadings on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,767/- and to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of decree and 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of reali