JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2010 passed in A.S.No.699 of 2005 on the file of V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2005 passed in O.S.No.1744 of 1999 on the file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 1. The unsuccessful defendant in a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note is the appellant in the present Second Appeal. In order to adjudicate the second appeal, the necessary facts are briefly culled-out hereunder,the parties being described as per the rank in the suit.

2. The plaintiff one Mr.K.N.Prasad, alleges that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-from one Mr.P.Premkumar on 15.05.1996, on execution of demand promissory note, agreeingto repay the same together with interest at 36% p.a. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant,besides the execution of the promissory note,also deposited title deeds of her house properties, covered by 5 sale deeds, with an intent to create a valid equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds, securing due repayment of the amount borrowed by her by execution of a demand promissory note. The said undertaking letter of deposit of title deeds confirming the borrowing and offering the documents as security was executed on the very next day i.e., 16.05.1996.It is the further case of the plaintiff that though the defendant paid interest upto 16.11.1996 to the original lender P.Premkumar, thereafter she failed to pay any amount,either towards interest or towards principal. The case of the plaintiff is that the said P.Premkumar made over the said promissory note in his favour, together with the title deeds deposited by the defendant, against receiving full consideration,inclusive of interest to the tune of Rs.3,26,000/-. Claiming to be a bonafide holder of the demand promissory note dated 15.05.1996, together with the equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds dated 16.05.1996, the plaintiff made several demands on the defendant for repayment of the money due. A lawyer’s notice was also issued on 23.11.1998, to which the defendant did not even send a reply, though she received the said lawyer’s notice. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for a decree to the tune of Rs.3,61,000/-representing principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and interest component of Rs.1,61,000/-, together with future interest and costs.

3. The defendant had filed a written statement stating that she is a divorcee and though she married, one Dr.Chandrasekar, the said person also tried to grab her money and proceedings initiated before the Family Court, Chennai. It is the case of the defendant that her husband, Dr.Chandrashekar took away all the defendant’s documents including cheques and started blackmailing the defendant that he would misuse the documents and cheques besides also spoiling the image of the defendant in the general public. It is also the specific case of the defendant that by forging her signature, her husband also filed Section 138 proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, against her. The plaintiff is none else than the sister's son of Dr.Chandrashekar and therefore the promissory note was also a forged one and according to the defendant she never executed any promissory note either in favour of P.Premkumar or the plaintiff, at any point of time Insofar as the claim of depositing a title deeds it is stated that her husband had taken away all the documents and therefore taking advantage of having custody of the same, he might have stage managed her situation as if the defendant’s title deeds were also deposited as a security for repayment of the alleged money borrowed by the defendant.

4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited documents namely Ex.A1 to A7. On the side of the defendant she examined herself as DW1 and exhibited documents Ex.B1 and B2. Curiously,the original lender who is said to have ma