9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the pronote i.e., 07.06.2007 till the date of the decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum with cost from and out of the estate of the deceased G.Pandurangan which is in the hands of the defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants had filed an appeal in A.S.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Gudiyatham. The learned Sub-Judge, Gudiyatham, by the judgment dated 31.08.2012 had allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. However, the parties were directed to bear their respective costs. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as described before the trial Court. 4. The averments made in the plaint are, in brief, as follows:- The first defendant is the wife and the defendants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased G.Pandurangan. The said G.Pandurangan borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the plaintiff for clearing the debt which was incurred for purchasing the land and executed a pronote dated 07.06.2007 agreeing to repay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .A1 to Ex.A4 as exhibits. On the side of the defendants, neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced. 7. The learned District Munsif, after considering the materials placed before him found that the suit promissory note is not barred by limitation. He further found that the said promissory note was executed by the deceased G.Pandurangan and the same is supported by the consideration and hence, the defendants being the legal heirs of the said G.Pandurangan, are liable to discharge the said debt from and out of the estate which is available in their hands. Accordingly, he decreed the suit directing the defendants to pay the principal amount of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 07.06.2007 from the date of promissory note i,e., 07.06.2007 till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization and with cost from and out of the estate of the deceased G.Pandurangan available in their hands. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants had filed an appeal in A.S.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Gudiyatham. The Sub-Judge, had allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid facts, had rightly decreed the suit, however, the first Appellate Court without considering the evidence in a proper perspective had erroneously allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit and hence, he prayed to allow the Second Appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has submitted that even though the defendants have denied the signatures found in Ex.A1 promissory note as not that of the deceased G.Pandurangan, the plaintiff has not taken any steps for getting handwriting expert's opinion. He further submitted that in Ex.A1 promissory note, it is stated that two persons have signed as witnesses and one person 'has signed as scribe but the plaintiff has not chosen to examine any of them and prove that the promissory note was executed by the deceased G.Pandurangan. He further submitted that since the plaintiff has not discharged his burden by adducing satisfactory evidence, the burden is not at all shifted to the defendants to adduce rebuttal evidence. He further submitted that the trial Court without taking into consideration of the aforesaid facts, mechanically decreed the suit but the first Appellate Court by considering the afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 30,000/- from him, for discharging the debts which were incurred by him for purchasing the land and executed the suit promissory note. The suit promissory note has been marked as Ex.A1. In Ex.A1 also, it is stated that the said deceased G.Pandurangan had borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for discharging the debts which were incurred by him for purchasing the land. In the said promissory note, one signature has been made on the stamp paper and another signature has been made below the stamp paper. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff had sent a lawyer's notice to the first defendant on 10.05.2010 informing the fact that her husband G.Pandurangan borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 07.06.2007 for clearing debts which were incurred by him for purchasing the land and executed the promissory note on 07.06.2007 agreeing to repay the aforesaid amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 16. He also called upon the first defendant to pay the aforesaid amount. Ex.A4 (Postal Acknowledgement) would show that the first defendant had received the said notice on 15.05.2010. the first defendant has not denied in her written statement with regard to the receipt of the said notice. So, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount for any illegal purpose. Therefore, it has to be presumed that he borrowed the amount only for the benefit of the family. Therefore, the defendants are bound to discharge the said debt from and out of the estate left by the deceased G.Pandurangan which is in their hands. Taking into consideration of all the aforesaid facts, the trial Court had rightly decreed the suit. Further, though the plaintiff had claimed interest at the rate of 24% till the date of the suit, the trial Court taking into consideration the transaction is not a commercial transaction, it has reduced the interest and directed the defendants to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the principal and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum. But the first Appellate Court without appreciating the evidence in a proper perspective had erroneously reversed the findings of the trial Court and therefore, the Second Appeal has to be allowed. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. 20. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court are set aside. The judgment and decree pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
