(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2025 made in A.S.No. 7/2022 on the file of learned Principal Ditrict Court, Theni, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.01.2022 made in O.S.No.91/2012 on the file of Learned Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam.)

1. The second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2025 made in A.S.No.7/2022 on the file of learned Principal District Court, Theni, confirming the Judgment and Decre dated 25.01.2022 made in O.S.No.91/2012 on the file of Learned Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- from him and executed a promissory note dated 01.10.2010, agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 14% per annum and to repay the loan amount within one year. Despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the principal amount along with the accrued interest. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 05.05.2012 calling upon the defendant to repay the loan amount. Upon receipt of the said legal notice, the defendant sent a reply notice dated 28.05.2012. Therefore, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of money.

4. The defendant resisted the suit by filing a detailed written statement contending that the claim made by the plaintiff is based on the promissory note, which had actually been entrusted to the plaintiff only as security for the loan amount borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff in the year 2004. For the said act, the plaintiff lodged a complaint. Upon enquiry, a settlement was arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant before the police authorities. A Muchalika was executed in this regard, and both parties had signed the same. The CSR receipt issued to the plaintiff was entrusted to the defendant after the defendant repaid the amount received by him. Thereafter, the plaintiff paid the said amount, and the same was recorded in the blank portion of the promissory note filed along with the suit. Suppressing the said material facts, the plaintiff instituted the suit on the basis of the promissory note, after removing the portion containing the endorsement regarding the payment of the amount. The defendant further contended that no cause of action had arisen for filing the suit, that no consideration had passed from the plaintiff, and that there was no valid execution of the alleged promissory note. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff P.W.1 and P.W. 2 were examined and 3 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and 3 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.

Decision of the trial Court and the first appellate Court:

6. The trial Court, on consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the suit on 25.01.2012, as against which, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.07 of 2022, before the Principal District Judge, Theni, which was also dismissed, confirming the findings of the trial Court.

7. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the first appellate Court, the defendant filed the present second appeal.

8. When the Second appeal is admitted, the following substantial questions of law was framed:

                   “(i)Whether the Court below erred in law in holding the claim of the plaintiff I proved when the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving the execution of Ex.A.1 by producing expert opinion regarding genuineness of writing in Ex.A.1 particularly in view of specific plea that Ex.A.1 was stated to be fabricated by the Plaintiff?

                   (ii)Whether the promissory note I a forged one?”

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

10. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant appeared before this Court along with their respective counsel. The plaintiff is suffering from various ailments and is aged about 80 years.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to bring the dispute to an amicable settlement. After due deliberations, the appellant/defendant expressed his willingness to settle the amount and sought some time for making the payment. Admittedly, the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- had already been deposited by the defendant before the trial Court. Therefore, the deliberations were confined only to the payment of interest. Though the respondent/plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, the appellant/defendant expressed his inability to pay the said amount. Hence, considering the circumstances, the parties arrived at a settlement for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant/defendant is directed to pay the said settled amount within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, either through his counsel or directly to the respondent's account, as the matter has been settled out of Court. The Court fee amounting to approximately Rs.25,000/- is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent/plaintiff as part of the terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

12. Therefore, the total claim amount is Rs.7,75,000/-. As per the terms of settlement, the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- shall be paid by the appellant/defendant. Since the respondent/plaintiff is aged about 80 years, he is permitted to withdraw the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- already deposited by the defendant before the trial Court, along with the accrued interest thereon. If any application is filed in this regard, the learned trial Judge is directed to disburse the said amount within a period of one week, without any further delay.

13. Since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the matter has been settled out of Court, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeal. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are left open and are not answered

14. In view of the above, the Second Appeal is disposed of as settled out of Court. In the event of any deviation from the terms of settlement, the parties are at liberty to seek appropriate remedy and the matter shall be reopened, if necessary. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.