The main legal point established is the burden of proof in a recovery of money case, where the plaintiff's evidence of the execution of the promissory note prevailed over the defendant's contradictory and unproven contentions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against thejudgment and decree dated 28.02.2023 made in A.S.No.10 of 2016on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Coimbatoreconfirming the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2015 made inO.S.No.6 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi.)

1. Judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting the reliefof recovery of money and the concurrence thereupon by the firstappellate court are put to challenge in the present second appealby the defendant.

2. Though the Second Appeal came up for admission, on aperusal of the questions of law, which are six in number, this courtfound that the appellant has sought to raise such questions only on2factual aspects to the effect that the plaintiff has not dischargedher burden of proof with regard to execution of the suit promissorynote and that she had sufficient means to lend the money andthereby, this court feels that it is suffice to see whether the courtsbelow have considered the defence of the appellant/defendant in aproper perspective rather admitting the second appeal.

3. The case of the plaintiff is as under:-

i) The defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-from the plaintiff on executing a promissory note agreeing torepay the amount with an interest of 12% per annum on herdemand. The defendant had executed the said promissory note inthe residence of the plaintiff in the presence of the scribe and witness.

ii) Since the defendant had not paid any amount towardsprincipal or interest inspite of repeated demands by the plaintiff, alegal notice was sent on 1811.2013 for which the defendant hadreplied on 23.11.2013 with false allegation. The plaintiff suitablyreplied to the same on 28.11.2013.

iii) Still, the defendant had not repaid the amount heborrowed and instead, he was making attempts to sell away hisonly property with an intention to defraud the plaintiff''s claim inrespect of the suit promissory note and hence, the suit has beenof a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 12%per annum.

4. A written statement was filed by the defendant raisingthe following contentions:-

i) The defendant neither borrowed any money from theplaintiff nor executed any promissory note in her favour.

ii) The legal notice sent by the plaintiff was suitablyreplied.

iii) It is incorrect to say that the defendant is attemptingto sell away the property belonging to him to defraud the plaintiff''sclaim in respect of the suit promissory note. In fact, the said wasconstructed with the permission of the State Government and itsaid for constructing green house with solar energy.

iv) To develop the said house, the defendant had borrowedsome amount from Guhan Enterprises at Pollachi-Palakkad roadand in that process, the Proprietor of the said firm viz., oneMr.Guhan had obtained the title deed in respect of the propertyand signed but, unfilled papers and stamp papers and thereuponpaid the loan amount, which was also duly repaid by thedefendant, but, when the defendant demanded for return of suchdocuments, he was redirected to one Manikandan, who happenedto be a broker of the said firm and guarantor for the said loanby contending that the documents had been entrusted tohim. The said Manikandan is none other than the son of theplaintiff.

v) The above documents had been fabricated as if theyhad been executed in favour of the plaintiff, mother of the saidManikandan. The plaintiff had lodged a complaint with the PollachiPolice Station against the plaintiff in respect of the fraudulent actcommitted by her whereupon, the plaintiff, after enquiring theparties, had advised the defendant to approach appropriate courtfor her remedy and hence, she had filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of2014 before the Trial Court.

vi) The Proprietor of Guhan Enterprises viz., Guhan is anecessary party to the suit.

vii) The defendant has to prove the e