JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2009 made in A.S.No.52 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, Vellore District, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.12.2006 made in O.S.No.112 of 2003 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.)

1. The first defendant in O.S.No.112 of 2003, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, is the appellant herein. Before the said Court, the first respondent herein filed the above referred suit, as against the appellant and the second respondent, seeking the relief of direction, directing to the defendants to pay the suit amount of Rs.1,20,500/- with future interest at the rate of 24% per annum and for costs.

2. By judgment and decree dated 28.12.2006, the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, had dismissed the suit with entirety.

3. Aggrieved over the said findings, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, in A.S. No.52 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore. By judgment and decree dated 10.06.2009, the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, had allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and granted the decree, as prayed for in O.S.No.112 of 2003. Feeling aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2009, the first defendant in the suit, preferred this Second Appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties, are referred to, as per their litigate status before the trial Court.

5. The laconic averments made in the plaint, are as follows:

(i) On 10.01.2001, the defendants jointly borrowed a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the plaintiff for the marriage expenses of the first defendant’s daughter and his family expenses, agreed to repay the same on demand with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and jointly executed a promissory note on the same day. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendants have not paid any amount and hence, legal notice dated 12.05.2003 was sent to the defendants. The second defendant received the notice whereas the first defendant neither received the notice nor notice was returned to the plaintiff. The second notice dated 08.07.2003 was received by the first defendant and no reply was given by both the defendants.

(ii) The defendants are earning a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per annum and having immovable properties worth more than Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, they are not entitled the benefit under the Debt Relief Acts. The defendants are bound to pay the suit amount.

6. The case of the first defendant, is as follows:

(i) The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. It is denied that on 10.01.2001, this defendant along with the second defendant jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from the plaintiff for the marriage expenses of this defendant’s daughter and executed a promissory note on the same day and agreed to repay the said amount at the rate of 24% per annum. This defendant never borrowed any amount along with second defendant C.R.Ravichandran.

(ii) Along with the second defendant, one Ravichandran, who is the close relative of the plaintiff, in order to play fraud over this defendant fabricated the pronote. The second defendant never joined with this defendant in any transaction. This defendant was one of the subscriber in an unauthorised chit conducted by the plaintiff. While giving the chit amount, the plaintiff used to get signatures of the successful bidder in unfilled pronotes. Likewise, this defendant in the year of 1992 was the successful bidder in a chit conducted by the plaintiff and for that, the plaintiff has obtained the signature of this defendant in some blank pronotes.

(iii) After paying the entire chit amount, this defendant many times requested the plaintiff to return back the pronote signed by him. Apart from that, this defendant stood as a guarantor for the loan obtained by one G.D.Rajendiran of Melpatti from the plaintiff. G.D.