The plaintiff's failure to disprove the defense taken by the defendant and the finding of the suit promissory note as not true and valid influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.03.2013 made in O.S.No.51 of 2009 on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge, Erode.)

1. This Appeal Suit has been filed, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.03.2013 made in O.S.No.51 of 2009 on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge, Erode.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.51 of 2009 on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge, Erode. The suit was filed for recovery of money with interest and for costs of the suit.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

4. The case of the Plaintiff, as set out, in the plaint is that on 06.12.2007, the Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- from Plaintiff for his urgent family and business expenses and he executed the suit promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff on the same day. The Defendant also agreed to repay the same to the Plaintiff on his demand, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum per hundred. Inspite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, the Defendant has not paid any amount either towards interest or towards principal. Thereafter, on 27.01.2009, the Plaintiff issued a registered notice to the Defendant. Though, the same was acknowledged by the Defendant, he has not taken any steps to repay the said amount. However, on 06.02.2009, the Defendant has issued a reply to the Plaintiff, and the contents of the reply were not admitted by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff, seeking reliefs, as stated above.

5. The averments found in the written statement filed by the Defendant, are as follows:

(i) The defendant denied the execution of the suit promissory note and also denied the consideration. It is stated that the defendant is aged about 73 years and an agriculturist, thereby, he has no necessity to borrow such a huge amount for interest. Further, the Plaintiff is an utter stranger to the defendant and he has never seen the Plaintiff on any occasion.

(ii) The properties mentioned in I.A.No.107 of 2009, filed by the Plaintiff for attachment in this suit, are very valuable properties situated at Trichy – Kovai N.H.67. In the above said properties, Item Nos.1 to 10 are ancestral properties of the defendant and Item Nos.11 to 14 were purchased by the Defendant through court sale deed in the specific performance suit in O.S.No.55 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur filed by the Defendant against one Devanna Gounder, Son of Palanimalai Gounder. Due to this, Devanna Gounder developed enmity over the Defendant. Hence, the said Devanna Gounder created illegal documents of power of attorney deeds, sale deeds with regard to the above said items of properties against the Defendant. He continuously gave troubles to the Defendant. The Defendant was not able to handle the Devanna Gounder individually.

(iii) At that time, some political persons namely Lakshmi Duraisamy and T.P.Karuppusamy voluntarily approached the Defendant to help and solve the problem against the Devanna Gounder. But they demanded 6 acres of land from the Defendant, signed blank promissory note and signed blank papers of the Defendant. Agreeing to the same, the Defendant executed sale deed in favour of D.Vijayanandh, who is son of Lakshmi Duraisamy and T.P.Karuppusamy. Thereafter, Lakshmi Duraisamy and T.P.Karuppusamy had lodged a criminal complaint against Devanna Gounder and others. Thereafter, Devanna Gounder and others cancelled the forged fabricated documents. But again, Devanna Gounder tried to create another fabricated document in favour of P.Balasubramanian, P.T.Rajamani and M.Natarajan in respect of the said properties. Hence, D.Vijayanandh had lodged a criminal complaint against Devanna Gounder and others before the District Crime Branch, Kar