IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.04.2022

0CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

A.S.No.935 of 2018

and

C.M.P.No.23802 of 2018

1.Punithavathi Maniam

2.Bharathi

3.Sudha

4.Raghul

..Appellants/Defendants

Vs.

M.V.Aruljothi

.. Respondent/Plaintiff

Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code

read with Order 41 & 41-A of C.PC., against judgment and decree

dated 19.03.2018 made in O.S.No.62 of 2012 on the file of the

learned Principal District Judge at Vellore.

For Appellants : Mr.Prakash Goklaney

For Mr.S.Giridharan

For Respondent

: Mr.Ravikumar Paul

Senior counsel

For Mr.Arun Anbumani

JUDGMENT

The defendants in O.S.No.62 of 2012 are in appeal,

aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.03.2018 passed by the learned

Principal District Judge at Vellore.

2. The suit in O.S.No.62 of 2012 had been filed by the

plaintiff, M.V.Aruljothi, seeking a judgment and decree,

directing the defendants, Punithavathi Maniam and her two

daughters and son, Sudha, Bharathi and Raghul to pay an

aggregate sum of Rs.13,79,133/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Seventy

Nine Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Three only) on the basis of

two promissory notes said to have been executed by the late

husband of the first defendant / father of the defendants 2 to

4, N.Balasubramaniam, who died before the institution of the

suit, but who is said to have been executed the promissory notes

and also for the accrued interest on the amount due and payable

and for costs of the suit. In the suit, it had been stated that

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the late husband of the first defendant / father of the

defendants 2 to 4, N.Balasubramaniam had borrowed a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from the plaintiff on

03.11.2009 and had agreed to repay the same with interest at the

rate of 12% per annum and had also borrowed a further sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) on 05.11.2009, again

agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per

annum and with respect to both the borrowals, had executed two

separate promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff on the very

same dates, namely on 03.11.2009 and on 05.11.2009.

3. There had also been further endorsements in the

promissory notes and those endorsements continued till

07.05.2012. It had been stated further in the plaint that for

the amount due on the second promissory note dated 05.11.2009,

N.Balasubramaniam had made a part payment of Rs.7,00,000/-

(Rupees Seven Lakhs only) on 15.02.2010. He had also paid

interest at the rate of 12% per annum on both the promissory

notes till November 2011. Towards the interest, which had

accrued upto April 2012 namely from November 2011 till April

2012, for a period of 5 months, which amounted to Rs.65,000/-,

the said N.Balasubramaniam had issued a cheque bearing

No.653442, drawn on ICICI Bank Limited at Vellore for

Rs.50,000/- on 07.05.2012. A copy of the cheque was also filed

along with the plaint. There was an endorsement made in the

promissory note till the last payment of the interest and in

that endorsement, the number of the cheque was mentioned. It is

claimed that the cheque related to the second promissory note

dated 05.11.2009. It had been stated that subsequent to November

2011, the interest had not been paid. Further, with respect to

the first promissory note dated 03.11.2009, it had been stated

that N.Balasubramaniam evaded payment of any further amount. He

unfortunately died on 28.07.2012. It had been claimed that as

legal representatives, the defendants are liable for the suit

claim.

4. A Written statement had been filed, which had been

verified by the first defendant and had been adopted by the 2^nd,

3^rd and 4^th defendants. In the written statement, it was denied

that N.Balasubrmaniam had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,00