9.The learned counsel for the defendant submits that the defendant had discharged all the loan transactions through the chit transaction that had with M/s.Sree Gokulam Investments and nothing due from the defendant to M/s.Sree Gokulam Investments. In the course of the aforesaid transaction, the plaintiff obtained from the defendant his signature in blank papers, blank promissory notes, blank stamp papers, blank forms etc. and also original sale deed in his favour dated 04.12.2006. Even in reply Notice dated 02.07.2015, the defendant called upon the entire documents, nothing was returned by the plaintiff. Without returning the same, the plaintiff has fabricated the Pronote for a sum of Rs.1,05,00,000/- with the intention to grab the defendant's property by giving life to the discharged and time barred loan transaction. In support of his argument, he relied on the Judgments in the case of " (i) V.R. Suddha Padayachi Vs. Indian Bank Branch, and others reported in 2000(1) CTC 654 and R.Subramaniam Naidu Vs. T.N. Rajendran reported in 1999(I) CTC 529. Thus, the defendant seeks to dismiss the suit.
