SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.RUKMANI – Appellant
Versus
K.S.PONNUSAMY GOUNDER – Respondent
AS 338/2010



Advocates:
['M/S A S BAALAJI', '', 'M JOTHIKUMAR', 'R K GANDHI', 'P M DORAISAMY', '', 'FOR RESPT IN AS SR STAGE', 'NOTICE SERVED', '', 'K S PONNUSAMY GOUNDER', 'SOLE RESPT']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.10.2012

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA

A.S.No.338 of 2010

K.Rukmani

.. Appellant/Defendant

vs.

K.S.Ponnusamy Gounder

.. Respondent/Plaintiff

This Appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated

26.11.2008 granted in O.S.No.330 of 2007 by the learned Additional

District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Bhavani.

For appellant : Mr.A.S.Baalaji

For Respondent : Mr.P.M.Doraisamy

JUDGMENT

This appeal is focussed by the defendant animadverting upon the

judgment and decree dated 26.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.330 of 2007 by

the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV,

Bhavani.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their

litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely the germane facts absolutely

necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

(a) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a

sum of Rs.6,49,600/-, based on two suit promissory notes.

(b) Challenging and impugning the genuineness of the suit pr

notes, the defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit

and denying the liability.

(c) Up went the trial, wherein, the plaintiff-Ponnusamy Gounder

examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.A1 to A7

were marked; the defendant-Rukmani examined herself as D.W.1 along

with D.Ws.2 to 4 and Exs.B1 to B10 were marked.

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

(d) Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this

appeal has been filed on various grounds.

5. The gist and kernel of the case of the plaintiff as stood

evinced from the plaint would run thus:

The defendant on 21.11.2004, borrowed a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-from

the plaintiff and executed the first suit promissory note undertaking

to repay the sum with 12% interest per annum on demand. Subsequently

on 19.05.2005, the defendant borrowed once again a sum of

Rs.2,80,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the second suit

promissory note. Inasmuch as there was default in repayment of the

loan amounts, the notice Ex.A3 was issued on 31.07.2007 by the

plaintiff, for nothing but to get a reply from the defendant denying

her liability. Whereupon the suit was filed.

6. Per contra, the defendant in a bid to torpedo and pulverise

the contentions as put forth and set forth on the side of the

plaintiff, filed the written statement, the gist and kernel of it

would run thus:

The defendant borrowed only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the

plaintiff. Thereafter, because the plaintiff insisted for furnishing

security for the prompt repayment of the said sum, at his behest and

compulsion, an agreement to sell emerged between the plaintiff and a

third party Kali Gounder concerning the defendant's immovable

property. Subsequently the plaintiff through Kali Gounder filed the

suit O.S.No.95 of 2003 for specific performance of such agreement.

Wherefore, subsequently there was no possibility or probability of

the defendant twice borrowing such huge amounts of Rs.2,10,000/- and

Rs.2,80,000/- from the plaintiff and executing the two suit pro

notes. At the time of lending the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- itself, the

plaintiff got as many as 15 blank pronote formats signed by the

defendant and her family members and accordingly, she would pray for

the dismissal of the suit.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff inviting the

attention of this Court to Exs.B1 to B9, would pyramid his argument,

which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

Exs.B1 to B9 no doubt were filed after examination of P.W.1.

Those exhibits were marked during the chief examination of D.W.1.

The Advocate for the plaintiff simply cross examined suggesting as

though all those documents were cooked up ones, purely for the

purpose of defending th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top