JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011 in A.S.No.50 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court No.2), Cuddalore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010 in O.S.No.68 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore.)

1. This second appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011 passed in A.S.No.50 of 2010 by the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.2), Cuddalore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010 passed in O.S.No.68 of 2009 by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are called as per their respective litigative status before the trial Court.

3. Bereft and niggard of details, the facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

3.1. On 28.08.2006, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the said amount on demand, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, in order to discharge the loan, the defendant neither paid the principal nor the interest. In order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant is trying to alienate his properties, so the plaintiff has not served with notice on the defendant. The defendant is not an agriculturist. Hence, he is not entitled to avail the relief under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act.

4. The contentions raised by the defendant in his written statement are as follows:

4.1. On 28.08.2006, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff for which, the plaintiff demanded excessive rate of interest. In order to recover the excessive rate of interest, the plaintiff got a pro-note for Rs.40,000/-. The plaintiff got the signature of the defendant in a blank printed form containing stamps. The amount of Rs.40,000/- alone was mentioned at the top of the document in a round column. The body was kept blank at the time of obtaining the signature from the defendant in the pro-note. In view of the strained relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff has altered the amount of Rs.40,000/- into Rs.1,40,000/- just 10 days prior to the filing of the suit. Without the consent of the defendant, the plaintiff has altered the instrument in respect of the amount. The alteration has done by the plaintiff in the pro-note is nothing but a material alteration. Hence, the suit pro-note becomes a void instrument. On 02.07.2009, the defendant has purchased a house site situated on the eastern side of the plaintiff’s house. Since the vendor of the defendant was not agreeable to sell the house site to the plaintiff, the defendant has purchased the same for a valid consideration. Aggrieved over the said transaction, the plaintiff has materially altered the pro-note and filed the present suit. Hence, the suit is not maintainable in law.

5. Based on the above said averments, the trial Court framed necessary issues. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3. and two documents are marked as Exs.A1 and A2. Similarly, on the side of the defendant, the defendant himself has examined as D.W.1 and three documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B3.

6. Having considered the materials placed before him, the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore came to the conclusion that the claim made by the plaintiff is not true and after concluding as above dismissed the suit with entirety. In the appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Cuddalore reversed the finding arrived at by the trial Court and ultimately the suit was decreed as prayed for. Being dissatisfied with the same, the defendant is before this Court with this present second appeal.

7. At the time of admissi