The Appellant/Defendant has projected this Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.2001 in O.S.No.9 of 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal.
2. The trial Court viz., the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record in the Judgment dated 21.08.2001 in O.S.No.9 of 2001 has inter alia observed that 'the Respondent/Plaintiff has proved that the Appellant/Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 20.01.1998 and executed that Ex.A1 suit pronote to the undertaking to pay the interest at the rate of 18% per annum of the principal amount mentioned therein but that the Appellant/Defendant has not proved that he has signed a printed blank pronote and handed over to the Respondent/Plaintiff on 11.07.1998, etc., and resultantly has come to the conclusion that the Appellant/Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 21.09.2008 and that the suit pronote is binding on the Appellant/Defendant and accordingly, passed a Decree with costs in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff.
3. Before the trial Court, in the main suit, four issues have been framed for adjudication. On the side of the Respondent/Plaintiff, Witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.A1 to A3 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Defendant, Witnesses D.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and Ex.B1 has been marked.
4. The point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is, Whether the Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to claim the principal amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the Appellant/Defendant?
CONTENTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS ON POINT:
5. According to the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant, the trial court has committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that the Appellant/Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- on reading the suit promissory note viz., Ex.A1 even without adverting to the case of the Appellant/Defendant and as a matter of fact, the finding of the trial Court that the Appellant/Defendant borrowed the suit amount on 20.01.1998 is without adverting Ex.A3 Reply Notice and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
6. It is the further contention of the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant that the trial court has not adduced reasons to repel the evidence of DW1 and DW2 and in fact, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit and that apart, in view of the contradictions of evidence between P.Ws.1 and 2, indeed the trial court should have rejected their evidence but unfortunately this has not been done by the trial court to the prejudice of the Appellant/Defendant.
7. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant urges before this Court that the trial court has committed an error in ignoring Ex.B1 Account Slip which is duly signed by the Respondent/Plaintiff and there is no explanation whatsoever by the Plaintiff in regard to the same and that apart, it is not the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff that he has been authorised by the Appellant/Defendant to fill in the blanks and as such, the trial court ought to have held that the Respondent/Plaintiff have fabricated Ex.A1 Pronote dated 20.01.1998 and filed the suit.
8.The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant is that Ex.A1 Pronote dated 20.01.1998 is only supported for a consideration of Rs.8,000/- and also, that the Appellant/Defendant has examined one Ramesh witness in the pronote as DW2 in the case and he has tendered evidence on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant (DW1) to the effect that Ex.A1 Pronote is only for Rs.8,000/- and therefore, the Appeal filed by the Appellant/Defendant may be allowed by this Court to prevent an aberration of justice.
9.Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff that the trial court has rejected Ex.B1 Account Slip and further, the trial court has come to a fair and just conclusion that Ex.A1 Pronote dated 20.01.1998 for Rs.20,000/- has been executed by the Appellant/Defendant and as such, the Decree passed by the trial court in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff may not be interfered with by this Court at this stage of the Appeal.
10.In the instant case, the evidence of the Respondent/Plaintiff viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 and D.Ws.1 and 2 play a significant role for a better and fuller appreciation of the case, as opined by this Court.
11.P.W.1 (Respondent/Plaintiff ) in his evidence has deposed that the Appellant/Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 20.01.1998 at the rate of 18% p.a. and that he has not paid any amount either towards the principal or interest and Ex.A1 is the suit Pronote, Ex.A2 is the Lawyer's Notice issued by him addressed to the Appellant/Defendant and Ex.A3 is the Reply Lawyer's Notice dated 23.02.2000 issued by the Appellant/Defendant and further that it is not true to say that the Appellant/Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.8,000/- only on several occasions.
12. It is the further evidence of PW1 that Ex.A1 the suit pronote has been written by his father.
13.Significantly, PW1 in his cross-examination has deposed that it is not true to say that the Appellant/Defendant borrowed only a sum of Rs.8,000/- from him on six different dates and he used to sign in English but not in Tamil and further that it is not true to suggest that he obtained blank pronote from the Appellant/Defendant and he gave money to the Appellant/Defendant in the presence of witness P.Ramesh for Ex.A1 and he is going to examine the said Ramesh as a witness in the case.
14.The evidence of PW1 in cross-examination is to the effect that he has denied the suggestion that he demanded the interest at 120% p.a. and he has denied the suggestion that the Appellant/Defendant paid him interest at 120% p.a. till September 1998 and therefore requested the payment of interest at the rate of 60%p.a. and further, he has also denied the suggestion that he has not agreed to receive the interest at 60% p.a. from the Appellant/Defendant and that the Appellant/Defendant stopped paying the interest from the month of October 1998, etc.,
15. P.W1 goes on to add in his evidence (in cross-examination) that he denies the suggestion on 30.11.1999 he has dropped a letter stating the accounts and interest due to the Appellant/Defendant and that he has signed the Account Slip in Tamil and denied the signature of him and that he denies the suggestion that the Appellant/Defendant is due to him only the principal amount of Rs.8,000/- and the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 01.10.1998, etc.,
16. P.W.2 (Father of P.W.1) in his evidence has deposed that he has written Ex.A1 Pronote and that the Appellant/Defendant has executed the Pronote in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff for a sum of Rs.20,000/- at the rate of 18% p.a. and the date of Pronote is 21.08.1998 and the said amount has been paid in the house of the Respondent/Plaintiff in cash and as the scribe of Ex.A1, he does not know any amount has been repaid towards Pronote.
17. Interestingly, the evidence of PW2 (in cross-examination) is to the effect that apart from one Ramesh who stood as a witness for Ex.A1 Pronote, at the time of execution of Ex.A1 Pronote himself, his son viz., the Respondent/Plaintiff and the Appellant/Defendant have been present and he denies the suggestion that Ex.A1 Pronote has been given in a blank form to the Respondent/Plaintiff and it has been subsequently filled by him and it has not been filled at the time of transaction.
18. The Appellant/Defendant has been examined as DW1 before the trial court. DW1 in his evidence has deposed that he has borrowed a total sum of Rs.8,000/- from the Respondent/Plaintiff on six different instalments and on 11.07.1990, he borrowed an amount of Rs.3,000/- as first instalment from the Respondent/Plaintiff and executed a printed blank Pronote in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff and he does not know the Respondent/Plaintiff directly and he has been introduced to him through one Ramesh, Son of Pavadaisamy of his native village.
19. Continuing further, it is the evidence of DW1 at the request of the Respondent/Plaintiff, Ramesh has affixed signature in the blank pronote as a witness and subsequently, he received a sum of Rs.1,000/- on 27.07.1998, Rs.2,000/- on 1.8.1998, Rs.1,000/- on 2.9.1998, Rs.500/- on 3.9.1998 and lastly, Rs.500/- on 1.10.1998 and he issued only one promissory note in the blank printed form on 11.07.1998 and that he is employed in Public Works Department at Karaikal.
20. The evidence of DW1 is to the effect that due to urgent necessity of money, he has accepted for the higher rate of interest and paid interest at the rate of 120% p.a. till September 1998 and further, he has not been in a position to pay interest at that rate subsequently and later, approached the Respondent/Plaintiff and requested him to reduce the rate of interest at 60% p.a. but the Respondent/Plaintiff has not agreed to the same and has not received the interest at that rate and therefore, he stopped paying the interest.
21. Besides the above, it is the evidence of DW1 that on 30.11.1999, the Respondent/Plaintiff has come to his house with the said Ramesh and gave him an Account Slip Ex.B1 and the entire contents of Ex.B1 has been written by the Respondent/Plaintiff and he has signed in that document in Tamil and he has mentioned the executed amount as Rs.8,000/- as principal which has been borrowed from him at different dates the interest as Rs.800/- which is the interest at the rate of 120% p.a. for Rs.8,000/- and that he received Ex.A2 Advocate Notice from the Respondent/Plaintiff for which he issued Reply Lawyer's Notice Ex.A3 and he is due to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- to the Respondent/Plaintiff towards principal and interest on and from 01.10.1998 at the rate of interest 12% p.a. since the loan has been obtained for his family expenditure.
22.It is the evidence of DW2 (Witness of Ex.A1 Pronote) that he knows the Respondent/Plaintiff and the Appellant/Defendant and the Appellant/Defendant does not know the Respondent/Plaintiff and he only introduced the Respondent/Plaintiff to the Appellant and the Appellant/Defendant has approached him for a loan and for that, he informed the Appellant/Defendant that the Respondent/Plaintiff is lending money and if he agrees to pay the higher rate of interest then he will obtain money from the Respondent/Plaintiff for which course, the Appellant/Defendant has agreed and totally, the Appellant/Defendant has asked for a loan of Rs.8,000/- which he informed the Respondent/Plaintiff and also that the Respondent/Plaintiff has agreed to give a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the Appellant/Defendant for which the Respondent/Plaintiff has asked for an annual interest at 120% p.a.
23. The evidence of DW2 is to the effect that the Respondent/Plaintiff on six instalments on different dates has paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the Appellant/Defendant and during that six times period, he has been present and the Respondent/Plaintiff on 11.07.1998 gave a sum of Rs.3,000/- as first instalment to the Appellant/Defendant and on that date, the Respondent/Plaintiff while handing over the money, has taken the signature of the Appellant/Defendant in a unfilled printed promissory note and in the Promissory Note, one Rupee Revenue Stamp has been affixed and later handed over the Pronote to him for his signature and in Ex.A1, the witness signature belonged to him. Later, on 12.07.1998, a sum of Rs.1,000/- on 01.08.1998, a sum of Rs.2,000/-, on 02.09.1998, a sum of Rs.1,000/-, on 03.09.1998 a sum of Rs.500/- as last instalment and totally, an amount of Rs.8,000/- has been paid and at that time, when he affixed his signature as a witness in Ex.A1 Pronote, it has not been filled up and remained as a unfilled one and the Appellant/Defendant has obtained a loan of Rs.8,000/- on the Promissory Note executed by him and apart from Ex.A1, he has not executed any other pronote but the suit has been filed for a sum of Rs.20,000/-.
24.Added further, D.W.2 in his evidence has stated that the Appellant/Defendant paid 120% annual interest for Rs.8,000/- for two months to the Respondent/Plaintiff and later on, he has not paid any interest and on 30.11.1999, the Respondent/Plaintiff approached him with an Account Receipt in which he has signed and he along with the Respondent/Plaintiff has handed over the said Reciept to the Appellant/Defendant and that the Receipt given by the Respondent/Plaintiff is Ex.B1.
25. DW2 in his cross-examination has candidly stated that on 11.07.1998 when Pronote has been prepared he has not put his signature on that date and that the Respondent/Plaintiff used to sign only in family and further that he does not know the Appellant/Defendant has paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards interest to the Respondent/Plaintiff.
26. In support of the contention that the Respondent/Plaintiff is only entitled to get what he can prove to have lent by means of positive evidence, the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant cites the decision of this Court MALLAVARAPU NARASAMMA AND OTHERS V. BOGGAVARAPU BULLI VEERRAJU, AIR 1937 MAD 769 in paragraphs 17 and 18, it is laid down as follows:
"17.It is well established in England that in cases where the Court examines a transaction in the light of the foregoing principles, the creditor is only entitled to get what he can prove to have lent, "by affirmative evidence, beyond the production of the note itself"; per Alderson B in Jones v. Gordon 2 Y&C (Ex.) 498; see also Bill v. Price 1 Vern 467. It is in accordance with this principle that in Moti Gutabchand v. Mahomed Mehdi (1896) 20 Bom. 367, Sundarammal V. Subramania Chettiar 1916 Nad, 278 and Sami Sah V. Parthasarathy Chetty 1916 Mad. 862, the Court refused to give a decree to the plaintiff for more than what he proved to have lent, even when it strongly suspected that the defendant must have received more than he admitted: See also Barkat Ullah v. Hayat Ali 1925 Lah 472; cf.Kishen Ballabh V. Ghure Mal 1915 All.228.
18. Reference was made, in passing to the decision in A.S.No.26 of 1927, apparently with a view, to suggest that even on receipt of a smaller amount there might be a valid promise to repay a larger amount. But that is not the plaintiff's case here and for obvious reasons too; for, in the circumstances, any serious disparity between the amount received and the amount promised to be repaid may go to support the defendant's plea of "undue influence". The plaintiffs have insisted that they have advanced the full amount shown in the pronotes, and if the evidence establishes payment only of smaller amounts the case will be clearly governed by Section 44, Negotiable Instruments Act."
27. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant also draws the attention of this Court to
Section 44 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which speaks of 'Partial absence or failure of money consideration.'
28.
Section 44 of the Negotiable Instruments Act enjoins as follows:
"Partial absence or failure of money consideration:- When the consideration for which a person signed a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque consisted of money, and was originally absent in part or has subsequently failed in aprt the sum which a holder standing in immediate relation with such signer is entitled to receive from him is proportionally reduced."
29.According to the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant,
Section 44 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is confined to immediate parties viz., those who are in direct and immediate relation with each other. Ordinarily, such parties are (a) the drawer and the acceptor of a bill (b) the drawer and the payee of a bill, as a general rule (c) the maker and payee of a note (d) the drawer and the payee of a cheque and (e) the indorser and his indorsee of a bill, note or cheque, as per decision ROBINSON V. REYNOLDS, (1841) 2 QB 196.
30. It cannot be gain said that where a lesser amount is shown in the Pronote is subsequently advanced by the payee, the liability of the maker is under
Section 44 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is proportionately reduced.
31.Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff that he is the holder of a negotiable instrument and that Negotiable Instrument has been duly executed with consideration at the first instance. However, the presumption under
Section 118(a), until the contrary is established, the presumption shall be made that every negotiable instrument has been made for a consideration. The execution of Ex.A1 Pronote is a rebuttable which can be rebutted by means of a circumstantial evidence or by presumption of fact drawn as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, as per decision RAJA KISHORE CHHAPOTRA V. LAKSHMANAN ROUT, (1991) (7) CCC 254 (ORI).
32. The Negotiable Instrument in effect throws the burden of proof of failure of consideration on the maker of the note or indorser as the case may be.
33. It is to be borne in mind that the burden of proof has two meanings, i) the burden of proof as a matter of law and pleading and ii) the burden of establishing a case, the former is fixed as a question of law on the basis of pleadings and is unchanged during the entire trial. However, the latter is not constant but shifts as soon as a party adduces sufficient evidence to raise a presumption in his favour. The evidence that is needed to shift the burden need not necessarily be direct evidence i.e., oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by opposite party. However, it may comprise of circumstantial evidence or presumptions of law or fact.
34. A Promissory Note is a Negoitable Instrument. When execution of pronote is duly proved, the presumption arises under Section 118(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act viz., the Pronote is fully supported by consideration mentioned therein. There is also a statutory presumption of consideration in respect of Pronote as per Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the burden of proof establishing a case shifts to the Defendant and in this regard, the Appellant/Defendant may let in direct evidence to prove that Ex.A1 Pronote has not been supported by consideration and if he adduces acceptable evidence then the burden again shifts to the Respondent/Plaintiff and so on. In case, the Appellant/Defendant is not able to prove his case, viz., the absence of consideration for Pronote then the Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to the sum along with interest.
35.It is to be borne in mind that
Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with exclusiveness of a documentary evidence whereas
Section 92 of the Act deals with the conclusiveness as also the inclusiveness of such evidence.
36.As a matter of fact,
Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 presupposes the validity of the transaction evidenced by the document. In case its validity is impeached, the Court is not bound by the 'paper expression' of the parties and may proceed to enquire into the real transaction between the parties as per decision BENIMADHAB v. SADASOOK 2 CWN 306 F.B.
37.The extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove any matter which by substantive law affects the validity of a document or entitles a party to any relief in respect thereof notwithstanding that such evidence tends to vary, add to or, in some cases contradict the writing. Eg.defective or conditional execution, contractual incapacity, Fraud, Forgery, Duress and Undue influence, Illegality of subject matter, mistake or want or failure of consideration. (Phipson 12th Ed.S.1909).
38.In the instant case, the Respondent/Plaintiff has issued Ex.A2 Lawyer's Notice to the Appellant/Defendant wherein he has averred that the Respondent/Plaintiff has borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from him and executed the suit Pronote and agreed to pay the interest at 18% p.a. and that the Appellant/Defendant has not paid any amount towards principal or interest inspite of many oral demands and therefore has called upon the Appellant/Defendant to pay the principal sum of Rs.20,000/- together with interest within one from the date of receipt of the Notice, etc.,
39. The Appellant/Defendant has issued Ex.A3 Lawyer's Reply Notice among other things mentioning that he denies the averment of the Respondent/Plaintiff that he has received Rs.20,000/- on 20.01.1998 or on any date and agreed to repay the same at 18% p.a. and further has stated that the Respondent/Plaintiff has been introduced by one Ramesh, Proprietor of a Fire Wood shop and in his presence, he has borrowed a sum of Rs.8,000/- from the Respondent/Plaintiff on different dates viz., Rs.3,000/- on 11.07.1998, Rs.1,000/- on 27.07.1998, Rs.2,000/- on 1.8.1998, Rs.1,000/- on 2.9.98, Rs.500/- on 3.9.98 and Rs.500/- on 1.10.98 and executed a blank Pronote in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff for his immediate expenses and the Respondent/Plaintiff had demanded interest at the rate of 120% p.a. for the amount borrowed. In short, the stand taken by the Appellant/Defendant as seen from Ex.A3 Reply Notice is that he is liable to pay only the principal amount of Rs.8,000/- received by him from the Appellant/Defendant and interest at 6% p.a. as the loan being for his clients personal family expenses calculated on and from 1.10.1998 to the date of receiving it, etc.,
40.A perusal of Ex.A1 Prononte reveals that it is printed Pronote in Tamil wherein some 5 lines are left blank and written in Tamil which shows that the Pronote for Rs.20,000/- has been executed in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff by the Appellant/Defendant -P.W.D Government Employee. Also, in Ex.A1 Pronote, the reason for availing the loan is mentioned as for the urgent need of family expense and also for the business purpose and that a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been paid in cash for which the rate of interest for Rs.100 at Rs.1.50. In the said Pronote, D.W.2 Ramesh Son of Pavadaipillai has signed. The scribe who wrote the Pronote is none other than the father of the Respondent/Plaintiff who has been examined as PW2.
41.As far as the present case is concerned, even though the Respondent/Plaintiff as in his evidence stated that he will examine the witness viz., DW2 of Ex.A1 Pronote but in reality the witness P.Ramesh in Ex.A1 Pronote has been examined as DW2 only on the side of the Appellant/Defendant. Much emphasis and reliance has been placed on the evidence of DW2 on the side of the Appellant/Defendant to show that Ex.A1 Pronote is supported by consideration only for Rs.8,000/- and Pronote is not for Rs.20,000/- as claimed by the Respondent/Plaintiff.
42. A perusal of Ex.B1 Slip shows that one S.Mohan has signed. The Word 's' has been put in English in Ex.B1 Slip and the name 'Mohan' has been mentioned in Tamil in the said slip. Heavy reliance is placed on the side of the Appellant/Defendant to show that Ex.B1 Account Slip deals with dates as 11.07.98, 2.07.98,01.08.98,02.09.98,03.09.98,01.10.98 wherein Rs.3,000, Rs.1,000, Rs.2,000, Rs.1,000, Rs.500, Rs.500 has been mentioned off and some entries are found to the effect that 14 months interest to be paid Rs.800 X 14 =Rs.11,200/- towards interest and Rs.8,000/- towards principal and a total sum of Rs.19,200/- for the period from 1.10.98 to 30.11.99, the Respondent/Plaintiff has denied that he has issued the Slip in favour of the Appellant/Defendant.
43. A scrutiny of Ex.B1 Account Slip shows that on 01.08.98, there is an entry of Rs.150/- and it is shown as income and on 01.09.98, there is an entry for Rs.300/- and on 1.9.98, an income of Rs.100/- is mentioned and on 1.10.1998, Rs.300 has been mentioned and the income on the said date is mentioned as Rs.100. Also on 1.9.98, the income is mentioned as Rs.200/- and also an income of Rs.200 has been made mention of. On the last column of Ex.B1 Account Slip, it is written in Tamil as "from 1.10.98, an interest has to be paid."
44. At this juncture, the Learned counsel for the Appellant points out that entry of Rs.150/- on 1.10.98, a sum of Rs.3,000/- and a sum of Rs.300/- entry on 1.9.98 is an interest paid for Rs.3,000/- and sum of Rs.300/- interest paid on 1.10.98 is for Rs.3,000/- Principal.
45.Though the Appellant/Defendant in his evidence as D.W.1 has stated that he borrowed a total amount of Rs.8,000/- from the Respondent/Plaintiff and also, D.W2 has deposed that the Respondent/Plaintiff paid to the Appellant/Defendant a total sum of Rs.8,000/-, etc., they do not inspire the confidence of this Court. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.1 (Respondent/Plaintiff) and P.W.2 (Scribe of Ex.A1 Pronote and Father of the Plaintiff) go to establish that the suit Pronote has been executed by the Appellant/Defendant for Rs.20,000/- at 18% p.a. Hence, this Court accepts the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. In this connection, it cannot be forgotten that a holder of a Pronote is entitled to fill up the sum in the blanks in law.
46.If it is established that an amount legally due to a person has not been paid, then the individual responsible for withholding the same must pay interest at a rate consider reasonable by a Court of law. Moreover, a Court of Law is to competent to reduce the rate of interest from the contractual rate depending upon the facts of a given case. Even the Pendete lite and Post-Decree interest can be awarded at a lower rate or even the interest can be reduced by a Court of law.
47. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and in view of the fact that even though an endeavour has been made on the side of the Appellant/Defendant that the suit Pronote Ex.A1 has been executed by the Appellant/Defendant only for a sum of Rs.8,000/- and to support the case of the Appellant/Defendant though he has examined on his side, the witness in Ex.A1 Pronote viz., DW2 and also on his side marked Ex.B1 Account Slip, yet this Court is of the considered view that the Appellant/Defendant has not established to the subjective satisfaction of this Court that Ex.A1 Pronote is supported only for a consideration of Rs.8,000/- but this Court on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and on overall assessment of the case in a conspectus fashion comes to the inescapable and inevitable conclusion that Ex.A1 Pronote has been supported by consideration for a sum of Rs.20,000/- but since in Ex.A1 Pronote, it is mentioned as that the Appellant/Defendant has mentioned for his urgent family necessity and also for business purpose and inasmuch as the Appellant/Defendant is said to be a PWD Government Servant, Kottucherry Government, this Court exercising its discretion directs the Appellant/Defendant to pay the suit Promissory amount of Rs.20,000/- together with interest only at 9% p.a. from the date of execution of the Pronote till date of realisation together with proportionate costs to the Respondent/Plaintiff and in above terms, the First Appeal is allowed in part and the suit is decreed accordingly.
M.VENUGOPAL,J.
VRI
39. In the result, the First Appeal is allowed in part leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.2001 in O.S.No.9 of 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal stands modified.
17.09.2010 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No vri To The Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal.
A.S.No.538 of 2002 17.09.2010