IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL A. Govindasamy S/o. Late Abbiah Naidu … Appellant / Respondent /

Plaintiff.

vs.

Janaki W/o. Periyasamy ... Respondent / Appellant /

Defendant PRAYER: : The Second Appeal has been filed praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri in A.S. No.45 of 2011 reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 25.08.2011 on the file of the Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri in O.S. No.132 of 2006.

For Appellant : Mr. B. Bharath Kumar for M/s. V. Nicholas For Respondents: Mr.. P. Mani

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No. 45 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri dated 13.09.2012, wherein the appellant herein, being the Plaintiff, has filed a Suit for the relief of recovery of money based on the Promissory Note and the same was decreed on 25.08.2011 by the trial Court in O.S. No.132 of 2006. As against the said decree and judgment, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. No.45 of 2011 and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant / Plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the Trial Court.

3. The case of the Plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the Plaintiff on 05.12.2003 and he agreed to repay the same with interest @ Rs.2/- per hundred per month and executed a Promissory Note. Thereafter, the defendant has not repaid the money. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed the said Suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.1,26,650/- as against the defendant.

3. The case of the defendant before the Trial Court is that the defendant never borrowed money from the Plaintiff on 05.12.2003 and never executed any Promissory Note. Already there is a dispute between the defendant and one Banda Munusamy Naidu in respect of the pathway and there was an enmity between the defendant and the said Banda Munusamy Naidu and now the Banda Munusamy Naidu, by using the Plaintiff, filed the Suit. The Plaintiff is none other than the in-law of the said Banda Munusamy Naidu. Therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the above said pleadings and upon hearing both sides and perusing the documents, the trial Court had framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the Suit Pronote is a forged one.

(ii) Whether there is no cause of action for the Suit.

(iii) Whether the defendant is entitled to compensation cost as prayed for.

(iv) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to Suit amount as prayed for.

(v) To what reliefs, the Plaintiff is entitled to.

5. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, before the trial Court, he examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Ex.A.1 and on the side of defendant, DW1 was examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 were marked. After analysing the oral and documentary evidences adduced on either side, the trial Court decreed the Suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment passed by the trial Court dated 25.08.2011, the defendant had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court i.e., Principal District Court, Krishnagiri in A.S. No.45 of 2011.

6. The First Appellate Court after hearing both sides and perusing the records, framed the following points for determination:

(i) Is is true that the defendant has not executed Promissory Note dated 05.12.2003.

(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of money of Rs.1,26,650/- from the defendant.

(iii) Whether the appeal is to be allowed or not.

After analysing the evidences adduced on both sides and perused the records including the judgment of the trial Court, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the Suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment,