JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendants in a suit for recovery of money based on promissory note, having suffered concurrent findings before the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are the appellants herein.

2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff sought for recovery of sum of Rs.1,06,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum, based on a promissory note dated 20.06.2011. The plaintiff issued a pre-suit notice dated 23.11.2011, calling upon the defendants to settle the amount due and payable to the plaintiff under the said promissory note. As the defendants did not come forward to either pay the amount or even reply to the lawyer’s notice, the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. The defendants filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff’s claim was false and fraudulent. The plaintiff was carrying on a chit business and the first defendant had joined as a member and for the said chit transactions, the plaintiff had taken three unfilled promissory notes from the defendants 1 and 2, as security for the chit amount. After completion of the chit period, the defendants requested return of the unfilled promissory notes and the plaintiff evaded the said request and the suit has been filed misusing one of the said promissory notes signed by the defendants and therefore, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings as well as oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the suit as prayed for.

6. The defendants preferred an Appeal in A.S. No. 24 of 2015 and the First Appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal, confirming the findings rendered by the trial Court.

7. The above Second Appeal was admitted on 06.07.2018, on the following substantial questions of law:

' (a) Whether the trial Court's finding in the judgment that there is no explanation on the plaintiff side about the non-issuance of the legal notice to the 2nd defendant, but concluded in favour the plaintiff is valid in the eye of law?

(b) Whether the plaintiff was having sufficient means to give loan to the defendant and the defendant having any necessity to borrow the loan from the plaintiff and availability of sufficient fund in the defendant account'

8. I have heard Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms.Adhishree for Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the respondent. I have also independently gone through the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence as well as the judgments of the Courts below.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants would revolve his submissions around the two substantial questions of law framed by this Court at the time of admission. He would state that the pre-suit notice was issued only to the husband and not to the wife, but however, the suit was filed against both the husband and wife. The learned counsel would also refer to the Bank statement exhibited by the defendants in Ex. No.B2 and according to the learned counsel for the defendants, when the defendants were possessed of sufficient funds, there was no necessity for them to borrow money from the plaintiff, that too for meeting family expenses and the first defendant’s father’s medical expenses.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants would also invite my attention to Ex. B1 which is an unfilled bank promissory note, which has been signed and executed by both the defendants and attempted to contend that since three promissory notes were available with the plaintiff, one of them has been misused to fabricate the suit promissory note. He would also further contend that the witness to the promissory note examined as P.W.2 having admitted that he was related to the plaintiff, his evidence cannot be considered, being a tutored witness. Reiterating that, apart from the chit transactions, the defendants had no connection with the plaintiff, the learned counsel for the appellants pray for the Second Appeal being allowed.

11. Per contra, learne