JUDGMENT : H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. 1. The appellants herein were the defendants before the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes and Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Mysore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Trial Court") in O.S.No.5/1999. The said suit was filed against them by the present respondent in his capacity as a plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,12,480/-. 2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that the defendants for their necessity had jointly borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-02-1996 and 10-03-1996 respectively. They had agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs. 2% per month thereon. In that regard, both of them had executed an On-Demand Promissory Notes with consideration receipts. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendants failed to repay the loan amount and the interest there upon. The plaintiff also got issued a legal notice on 08-10-1998 to the defendants for which they sent an untenable reply on 05-11-1998. Since the repayment of the loan remained unpaid to the plaintiff, he was constrained to institute a suit in the Trial Court. 3. The defendants after appearing in the Original Suit had filed their Written statement wherein, they had denied the plaint averments that they had availed a loan of a total sum of Rs. 70,000/- from the plaintiff. On the other hand, they had taken a contention that the plaintiff was running a Chit business and the defendants were members therein. At the time of drawing Chit amount and at the force of the plaintiff, defendants signed two blank stamp papers only as a security in respect of the Chit transaction. However, those stamp papers were misused by the plaintiff by filing a false suit against them. They also stated that on 03-10-1997 itself, they had filed a Criminal Complaint against the plaintiff in K.R. Police Station. As a counter blast of the same, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against them. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. They also stated that on 03-10-1997 itself, they had filed a Criminal Complaint against the plaintiff in K.R. Police Station. As a counter blast of the same, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against them. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant borrowed loan of Rs.40,000/- on 15.2.96 and another sum of Rs.30,000/- on 10.3.96 from the plaintiff by executing separate on demand promotes in his favour agreeing to repay the loan amount together with interest at 2% p.m. as averred in para 2 of the plaint? 2. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff conducting Chit business, during relevant point of time and obtained their signatures to blank stamp paper, towards security of Chit amounts averred in para 3 of the written statement ? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves the suit claim? 4. What order, What decree? The plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and got examined one Sri. Gurulingu as PW-2 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-5. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant No.2 got examined himself as DW-1 and examined one Sri. M.Mohan and one Sri. Yogalingegowda as DW-2 and DW-3 respectively. 5. After hearing both side, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,12,480/- with current and future interest at Rs. 6% per annum on Rs. 70,000/- from the date of suit till realisation. It is against the said judgment and decree dated 13-09-2006, the present appeal has been filed. 6. Lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel from both side and perused the material placed before this Court including the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants in his argument submitted that, there is no due execution of the Promissory Notes and that there is no passing of consideration to the defendants from the plaintiff towards the alleged execution of the Promissory Notes. He also submitted that the alleged Promissory Notes were given only as a security in connection with the Chit business that was being run by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has misused the said blank stamp papers duly signed by the defendants and instituted the present suit. He also submitted that the alleged Promissory Notes were given only as a security in connection with the Chit business that was being run by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has misused the said blank stamp papers duly signed by the defendants and instituted the present suit. Learned counsel also submitted that PW-2 in his evidence has stated that the stamp papers were purchased on the date of the loan, whereas, the stamp papers produced at Exs.P1 and P2 show that they were purchased on the previous day of the loan transaction. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in his argument submitted that, the evidence of prosecution witnesses would clearly go to show that the defendants have executed the Promissory Notes knowing fully well the nature of the document and in return of the consideration of two loans of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively. He also submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Promissory Notes were issued only as a security is an afterthought and no material to show that the plaintiff was running any Chit business has been produced by the defendants. The evidence of defence witnesses is not trustworthy and reliable. He also submitted that the evidence of DW-2 would go to show that there were documents to show that they were members of the Chit, but, they have not produced them. The same would go to show that, had there really been any Chit business run by the plaintiff, even the defendants also should have maintained some documents to show their membership in it. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff further submitted that DW-1 in his Examination-in-chief has stated that the alleged blank stamp papers were said to have been given by the defendants to the plaintiff at the time of bidding the Chit which was said to be in June 1996, whereas, the Promissory Notes at Exs.P-1 and P-2 which are the stamp papers, were purchased on 14-02- 1996. This itself goes to show that the defendants have taken an untenable defence. 10. After hearing the learned counsel from both side, the only point that arise for my consideration is: Whether the judgment and decree under appeal deserves its setting aside, holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case? PW-1 and PW-2 have iterated their contentions taken up in the plaint. 10. After hearing the learned counsel from both side, the only point that arise for my consideration is: Whether the judgment and decree under appeal deserves its setting aside, holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case? PW-1 and PW-2 have iterated their contentions taken up in the plaint. In order to support his contention that the defendants had availed hand loan of Rs. 40,000/- on 15-02-1996 and another sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 10-03-1996, the plaintiff has got produced two OnR. Demand Pro-Notes on Stamp paper of Rs. 20/- each and got them marked at Exs.P-1 and P-2 respectively. The recital in both these documents shows that the defendants, for their necessities, had availed hand loan of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on 15-02-1996 and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 10-03-1996 from the plaintiff. Both the documents have also got consideration receipts shown to have executed by both the defendants. As such, the learned counsel for the appellants'/defendants' contention that no consideration has been passed on to the defendants from the plaintiff, is not acceptable. Admittedly, the defendants have not denied or disputed their signatures in Exs.P-1 and P-2. The signatures of the defendants in those documents are marked as Exs.P-1(b), P-1(c), P-1(d) and P-1(e) and at Exs.P-2(a), P-2(b), P-3(a) and P-3(b). Merely because a document in the form of a Promissory Note is shown to have been signed by the defendants, by that itself it cannot be concluded that the defendants have executed the said document. It is required of the plaintiff to show that the executants of the document had executed the documents knowing the nature of the document and understanding its contents. 11. Pw-1 in his cross-examination has given few more details as to under what circumstances the defendants approached him requesting for a loan. He has stated that expressing the domestic difficulties and also the purpose of running a TV Shop, the defendants wanted loan from him. He has also stated though the defendants wanted more amount as loan, but on 15-03-1996, he had only a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with him, as such, he gave only Rs. 40,000/- to them on the said date, in which a writing was made on the stamp paper as per Ex.P-1. 12. He has also stated though the defendants wanted more amount as loan, but on 15-03-1996, he had only a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with him, as such, he gave only Rs. 40,000/- to them on the said date, in which a writing was made on the stamp paper as per Ex.P-1. 12. Pw-1 G.M. Puttaswamy the plaintiff has also stated that thereafter, once again, when the defendants approached him for an additional loan of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 10-03-1996, they executed another Promissory Note at Ex.P-2 and took the loan amount. All these details of the alleged loan transaction, the defendants specifically denied in further crossexamination of PW-1 from the defendants' side. 13. In support of his suit, the plaintiff also got examined one Sri. Gurulingu PW2, as a witness to the alleged transaction. Incidentally, the plaintiff as PW-1 in his Examination-in-chief has stated that the said Gurulingu along with one Sri. Ramesh and Sri.Marigowda were also present when the loan transaction had taken place. The said Gurulingu in his evidence reiterated what the plaintiff had stated in his evidence and specifically stated that he was present when the defendants executed both the Promissory Notes in consideration of loan amounts of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- received by them from the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, the said witness has further given few more details as to from where the stamp papers were purchased by the defendants and who was the scribe of both the Promissory Notes and why only one Promissory Note was executed at an earlier date and the second one at a later date. 14. Pw-2 - Gurulingu has stated that though it was decided to write both the Promissory Notes on the very same day, but, the plaintiff since gave only a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as a loan on the first date, i.e. on 15-02-1996, only one Promissory Note was executed by the defendants on the said day. The witness has also stated that since only one Promissory Note was executed on the said day, the plaintiff was given with only one document on that day. He further stated that he does not know who retained the second document. 15. The witness has also stated that since only one Promissory Note was executed on the said day, the plaintiff was given with only one document on that day. He further stated that he does not know who retained the second document. 15. From the said evidence, the witness has made it clear that, the loan transaction has taken place on two different dates and it was only on the respective dates, the two documents were executed by the defendants after the receipt of consideration in the documents. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that there was no execution of documents at Exs.P-1 and P-2 by the defendants, is not acceptable. 16. The contention of the plaintiff that the two documents were executed on two different dates, i.e. on 15-02-1996 and 10-03-1996 is also further shown in his evidence where in his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that when the defendants executed the second document, he had carried along with him the first Promissory Note executed by them. On the same lines, the defendants have executed the second document also. The said statement of PW-1 has not been denied from the defendants' side. Therefore the said evidence of PW-1 which is corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 would go to show that the defendants 1 and 2 have not merely signed upon Exs.P-1 and P-2, but, have executed the said documents understanding its contents and consequences. 17. It is not the case of the defendants that they do not know what a Promissory Note is. But it is their specific contention that the Promissory Notes at Exs.P-1 and P-2 were originally given by them to the plaintiff as blank stamp papers towards a security as bidders in the Chit business alleged to have been run by the plaintiff. However the plaintiff as PW-1 has categorically denied the same. 18. The defendant No.2 apart from examining himself as DW-1 also got examined one Sri. M. Mohan and one Sri. Yogalingegowda as DW-2 and DW-3 respectively. However the plaintiff as PW-1 has categorically denied the same. 18. The defendant No.2 apart from examining himself as DW-1 also got examined one Sri. M. Mohan and one Sri. Yogalingegowda as DW-2 and DW-3 respectively. Both these witnesses in their evidence have stated that the plaintiff was running a Chit business and if the Chit amount was to be withdrawn before the closure of the Chit duration, then the plaintiff used to take signature on the blank stamp paper and used to retain the same as security for the balance of Chit instalments and it is only after closure of the Chit, he used to return the same. The denial suggestions made to them in their cross-examination were not admitted as true by them. 19. Dw-3 in his cross-examination has stated that he had documents returned by the plaintiff with respect to the Chit business. However, he has torn them. If the said statement of the witness is believed that he was returned with the documents of the Chit business, then, even the defendants also should have received or maintained such documents to show that they were members or customers in the Chit business said to have been run by the plaintiff. In the absence of the defendants producing any documents in that regard, that too, when DW-2 claiming himself also a Chit member has stated that he was returned with documents pertaining to Chit business, the defence of defendants that the plaintiff was running a Chit business and that the Promissory Notes in question were given to him as a security for the said Chit business prevents the Court from believing the said contention. 20. Assuming for a moment that the plaintiff was running a Chit business, then, according to DW-2 and DW-3, it was only when the Chit amounts were to be withdrawn before closure of the Chit, then the plaintiff used to take the signature on the blank stamp paper and used to retain the same as a security for the balance of Chit instalments and it is only after closure of the Chit, he used to return the same. If the same were to be true, then, nothing had prevented the plaintiff to sue the defendants as defaulters in repayment of Chit amount. If the same were to be true, then, nothing had prevented the plaintiff to sue the defendants as defaulters in repayment of Chit amount. On the other hand, the evidence of Defendant No.2 as DW-1 is that while drawing the Chit amount, the plaintiff made them to sign a blank stamp paper as a security. The very same witness in his crossexamination has categorically stated that it was in the month of June of 1996 that he drew the Chit amount. Thus, according to DW-1 himself, had this blank stamp paper so obtained by the plaintiff at that time, then, the date of stamp paper should have been of June 1996. On the other hand, the date of purchase of stamp paper by the parties is shown as 14-02-1996 in both documents at Exs.P-1 and P-2. It is nobody's case that anticipating that they would draw Chit in the month of June of the same year, the defendants had in advance purchased and kept the stamp paper with them. All these aspects would clearly go to show that the contention taken by the defendants that the Promissory Notes in question were given to the plaintiff only as a security, is not acceptable. 21. It also cannot be ignored of the fact that the said contention of the defendants that the Promissory Notes were given as a security to the plaintiff has not been suggested to PW-1 from the defendants' side. A Mere suggestion made by them that the signatures found at Exs.P-1 and P-2 were made in connection with the Chit business cannot be construed as though the said documents were given as a security in the said Chit business. Even for this reason also, the contention of the defendants that Exs.P-1 and P-2 were given only as a security in its blank form cannot be accepted. 22. In addition to the above, a perusal of the documents at Exs.P-1 and P-2 would go to show that the defendants apart from putting their signatures on the front side of both the said documents, the recitals of which are that of a Promissory Note, in the form of an unconditional promise to pay the amount mentioned therein on demand to the plaintiff, have also signed on the backside of both the documents which are the consideration receipts. The signatures are on revenue stamps. The signatures are on revenue stamps. It is not the case of the defendants that when they are alleged to have given a blank stamp paper of Rs. 20/- each to the plaintiff duly signed by them, the said blank stamp paper had also pasted upon it a revenue stamp on which also they had put their signature. 23. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 inspires confidence in the Court to believe it and clearly proves that the defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on 15-02-1996 and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 10-03-1996 from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest there upon on at the rate of Rs. 2% per month to the plaintiff. Admittedly, the defendants have not repaid the said loan amount together with interest there upon. As such, appreciating the evidence placed before it in its proper perspective, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, however, by confining the rate of interest only at Rs. 6% per annum, on the total principal amount of Rs. 70,000/- from the date of suit till realization. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said judgment passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER [i] The appeal is dismissed; [ii] The judgment and decree dated 13-08-2006 passed by the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes and Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Mysore in O.S.No.5/1999 is hereby confirmed; [iii] The deposit of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- said to have been made by the appellants herein by virtue of the order of this Court dated 18-01-2007, if not already released to the plaintiff, be released to him as a partial satisfaction of the decree. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court records to the concerned Trial Court immediately.