JUDGMENT

The defendant in O.S.No.170 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai is the appellant in this second appeal.

2.The respondent herein, Thiru.Muthuramalingam, filed the said suit for recovering a sum of Rs.80,960/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.66,000/- from the date of suit till realisation. The suit was laid on the basis of Ex.A1 pro-note, dated 13.01.2003.

3.The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant/appellant herein approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and that the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was received by the defendant from the plaintiff at Thanicha Oorani, after the defendant executed the suit pro-note. On 18.09.2003, the defendant repaid a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, the defendant did not make any payment. Since the defendant was evading to repay, the plaintiff/the respondent herein issued Ex.A2 notice dated 12.06.2004. The same was returned as “unclaimed”. According to the plaintiff, due to accumulation of interest, the suit claim was for a sum of Rs.80,960/-.

4.The defendant filed his written statement denying the various allegations made in the plaint. According to the defendant, the transaction took place only at Madurai and not at Thanicha Oorani in Sivagangai District. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was carrying on finance business at Amman Sannathi in Madurai. The details regarding the office run by the plaintiff have also been set out in the written statement. According to the defendant, he repaid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 18.09.2003 and the balance amount of Rs.62,000/- in November, 2003. The defendant would claim that the plaintiff issued Exs.B1 and B2 receipts. Thus, the entire loan amount had been settled in full and no further amount was due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5.Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Munsif framed 4 issues. The first issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.80,960/- as prayed for by him. The second issue was whether the defendant had discharged the loan liability. The third issue was whether the trial Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

6.The plaintiff examined himself as P.W1 and his brother-in-law, Swarnalingam as P.W2. The defendant examined himself as D.W1 and one Muthukumar as D.W2. The trial Court by judgment dated 10.03.2005 decreed the suit and directed the defendant to pay the suit claim of Rs.80,960/- and also to pay interest at the rate of 12% from the date of plaint till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant filed A.S.No.33 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Devakottai. The appellate Court also sustained the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Questioning the same, this Second Appal came to be filed. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1.Whether the finding of the Courts below regarding the place wherein the cause of action arose can be termed perverse?

2.Whether the Courts below have committed an error in law in not considering the oral and documentary evidence produced on the side of the appellant/defendant in proof of the plea of discharge?

3.Whether the Courts below have erroneously applied Section

92 of the Evidence Act to negative the contention of the defendant that the suit promissory note was created by filling up the signature of the appellant/defendant had been obtained blank promissory note in which the signature of the appellant/defendant had been obtained? ”

7.I heard the learned counsel on either side on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant primarily contended that the District Munsif Court, Devakottai completely lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to him, the cause of action arose only at Madurai. It may be true that the plaintiff resided at Thanicha Oor