JUDGMENT

The defendant in a suit for recovery of money is the appellant before this Court.

2.The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.1703 of 2015.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE:

3.The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that he and the appellant are siblings and she had approached him with a request to extend financial assistance for purchasing a property and to settle her debts. Considering the relationship, the respondent had lent a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on different dates as detailed in the Plaint. These amounts had been given by the plaintiff by withdrawing cash from his Bank, namely, State Bank of India, CIT Nagar Branch, Chennai and paying cash to the appellant.

4.The case of the respondent is that at the time of the borrowal, the appellant had executed a Loan Confirmation Bond dated 25.03.2012 on a Rs.20 Non-Judicial Stamp Paper favouring the respondent in which she had stated that she would repay the said amount within one year from the date of Bond. This promise was observed in a breach. Despite repeated requests, the defendant had not come forward to clear the said outstanding constraining the respondent to issue a Notice dated 23.06.2014 calling upon the appellant to repay a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- together with interest. By a reply dated 04.07.2014, the appellant had repudiated the respondent's claim. Therefore, the respondent filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- together with interest @24% on the principal sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of Plaint till the date of realisation. The suit has been filed as a Summary suit, however, the records would indicate that the suit has proceeded only as a regular suit and not a Summary one.

DEFENCE OF THE APPELLANT:

5.The appellant had filed a Written Statement inter alia denying the very borrowal. She had contended that during the purchase of a property on 03.10.2011, the respondent had assisted her in registering the documents. The appellant would submit that due to her illiteracy, she had not noticed an error in mentioning the Survey Number and Block Number of the property. Therefore, in the year 2012, she had got assistance of the respondent to register a Rectification Deed dated 26.03.2012. The appellant would submit that she did not require to borrow money to purchase the property as she had won a Lottery and got a gift of Rs.4,50,000/-. Therefore, the allegation of the respondent that he had lent a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on different dates is absolutely incorrect. The fact that the respondent had not taken acknowledgments on the date on which the money is alleged to have been extended would clearly show that the claim of the respondent is false.

6.It is the case of the appellant that the respondent had made use of a blank stamp paper signed by the plaintiff at the time of getting the Rectification Deed registered. That document has been put into use for creating the Bond. Further, the claim of the respondent that the amounts have been paid in cash is unbelievable since each of these amounts were huge sums of money which could not be paid in cash as per the regulations. The appellant had denied the liability in her reply dated 04.07.2014, despite which, the above suit has been filed. She has also taken out a defence that the document, namely, the loan bond is insufficiently stamped and it could not be acceptable in evidence.

TRIAL COURT:

7.The learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, had framed the following issues:

"(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- together with interest at 25% on the principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of Plaint till realization?

(2)To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?"

8.The parties have gone to trial on the basis of the above issue.

From the records, it is seen that the Chief examination of the plaintiff as PW1 was