JUDGMENT: -

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 26.03.1999, in O.S. No.16 of 1997 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondent herein is the defendant in the said Suit.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,52,160/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 25.01.1996 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,20,000/- and for costs.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.16 of 1997, are as under:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.01.1996 for the purpose of purchasing cattle and constructing house at Rajam and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. But, inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, defendant did not choose to pay any amount and has been postponing the same on one pretext or other. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

5. The defendant filed a written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

This defendant has no necessity to borrow money from anybody much less from the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not a man having capacity to lend money and he has no capacity even to lend Rs.10/- to anybody. The defendant further pleaded that the purpose for borrowing the loan is for completion of the construction of the house is nothing but false as the husband of the defendant alone constructed the house with his exertions by 1994 itself. Therefore, when the husband of the defendant has already completed the construction of the house in 1994 itself, this defendant has no necessity to borrow amount from anybody for completion of construction of the house. So the recitals of the pronote itself indicates that the pronote was a created one with a view to harass the defendant due to enemity existing between the husband of the defendant and the plaintiff due to the misappropriation committed by the plaintiff during the chit business run by the husband of the defendant and the plaintiff.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration?

(ii) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW1 to DW3 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked.

8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment, dated

26.03.1999, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.

9. Heard Smt K.Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff through virtual hearing and Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned counsel, representing Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent/defendant.

10. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the Court below failed to observe that the evidence of PW1 to PW4 clearly proves that the defendant borrowed the amount under Ex.A1 promissory note and she would further contend that instead of decreeing the suit the Court below dismissed the suit. She would further contend that the Court below should have seen that in view of the admission of the defendant about the signature on Ex.A1, the burden lies on the defendant to prove the Ex.A1 is not supported with consideration. She would further contend that the defendant failed to establish that the appellant obtained blank signed papers only with a view to create the suit promissory note. She would further contend that the learned tria