





Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
A court judgment on a debt recovery suit filed by a plaintiff against the legal heirs of kumaravel, who allegedly borrowed money from the plaintiff. The case revolves around a promissory note executed by kumaravel, his death, and the defendants' claim that the note is fabricated and the loan was already repaid. Evidence presented by both parties, the court's findings, and the final decision on the case.
Typology: Papers
1 / 9
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Present : Tmt.L.Shakila, M.A., M.L., Sub Judge, Manapparai Monday, this the 29th^ day of January’ 2024 O.S.No.415/ CNR.No.TNTP1A-001863- Saraswathi & Co. Financies, Rep. by its Proprietor Palaniyappan …Plaintiff Vs
an advocate notice on 22.01.2020 for which the defendants replied with full of false averment and hence this suit for recovery of money.
3. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the 1st^ defendant and adopted by other defendants runs as follows: The defendants denied the averments in the plaint. The defendants submit that the suit promissory note has been fabricated by the plaintiff as if Kumaravel had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, that the plaintiff is not at all a holder in due course of the suit promissory notice as it has not been addressed to the plaintiff and that the promissory note is an incomplete instrument. The defendants further submit that Kumaravel did not borrow Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff, that he borrowed a small amount and he himself during his life time has discharged the same for which the plaintiff has issued endorsements in two hand note books. The defendants further submit that after the demise of Kumaravel, the plaintiff has manipulated the suit promissory note with an ulterior motive of getting undue enrichment if possible and hence the suit has to be dismissed. 4. Based on the above pleadings, this court has framed the following issues:
case by examining himself, the attestor and from Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4. But the defendants had failed to prove the discharge of the borrowed amount. From Ex.A- and from the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 this court comes to conclusion that the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported with consideration. While so, the contention of the defendants that the borrowed amount was discharged by Kumaravel and that the plaintiff has fabricated the suit promissory note is not acceptable.
from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.
17. Result: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- along with 9% interest per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization to the plaintiff. Typed by me in computer directly, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29 th day of January’ 2024. Sub Judge, Manapparai Plaintiff's side witness: P.W.1 ... Thiru.Palaniyappan (Plaintiff) P.W.2 … Thiru.Saravanakumar Plaintiff's side Documents: Ex.A-1 07.10.2017 Pronote Ex.A-2 22.01.2020 Office copy of Advocate notice issued by the plaintiff Ex.A-3 27.01.2020 Reply notice Ex.A-4 Acknowlegment card (No’s 2) Defendants Side witness:- D.W.1 .. Tmt.Pakiyalakshmi ( st Defendant)