JUDGMENT

The defendants in O.S.No.275 of 2004 are the appellants in this appeal.

The said suit in O.S.No.275 of 2004 was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of the sum of Rs.34,360/- representing Rs.20,000 as principal and Rs.14,360/- towards interest with future interest at the contractual rate from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.

2. According to the plaintiff/respondent herein, on 10.06.2001, the defendants/appellants have borrowed from him a sum of Rs.20,000/- and executed the suit promissory note dated 10.06.2001. Thereafter, the defendants did not repay neither the principal amount nor the interest.

Therefore, he has filed the suit for recovery of the amount.

3. A written statement was filed by the defendants contending that on

07.09.2001 they borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff and not Rs.20,000/- as alleged. Even out of the sum of Rs.10,000/-, the plaintiff deducted Rs.1,000/- towards interest and paid only a sum of Rs.9,000/- to them. It is further stated that the defendants did not execute the suit promissory note agreeing to repay Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 24%

per annum. Further, the defendants have paid a total sum of Rs.26,000/- towards interest alone for twenty six months. If at all, the defendants are liable only to pay the principal sum of Rs.10,000/- alone. However, the plaintiff is not prepared to receive the said amount and refused to return the property deeds to the defendants. The defendants therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. During trial, the plaintiff/respondent herein examined himself as P.W.1 alone with one Paramasivam, attestor of suit promisory note, as P.W.2 and Exs. P1, suit promissory note was marked. On behalf of the defendants, the defendants examined themselves as D.W.s 1 and 2 along with one Parthiban and Balaraman as D.W.3 and 4, however, they have not marked any document on their side.

5. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit by placing reliance on the deposition of DWs 1 to 4. The trial court concluded that DWs 1 to 4 have clearly deposed that their signatures have been obtained in blank. The trial court also observed that the ink with which the defendants 1 and 2 have signed, the signature of first attesting witness and the second attesting witnesses in the promisory note differs. The trial court also observed that there is substantial gap between the place where the defendants signed and the recitals contained in the promisory note. The trial court further observed that the plaintiff in his deposition has admitted that he is in possession of the parent deed of the defendant's land and refused to return it as the defendants have not repaid the entire amount borrowed. On the basis of such admission, the trial court concluded that after having received the suit promisory note, there is no necessity for the plaintiff to retain the parent documents of the defendants. The trial court also referred to the deposition of DWs 3 and 4, and came to the conclusion that the defendants have borrowed amount and repaid the entire amount to the plaintiff. On the basis of the deposition of DWs 3 and 4, the trial court held that on 26.01.2004, the plaintiff received a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the defendants and another sum of Rs.4,000/- was received on 10.03.2004 thus, the defendants have repaid the entire loan amount. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed A.S. No. 86 of 2005. The appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court on the ground that the defendants have not produced any evidence to show that they have received only Rs.10,000/- as loan from the plaintiff especially in the suit promisory note a sum of Rs.20,000/- is mentioned. The Appellate Court observed that the defendants did not dispute the execution of the suit promisory note but their def