( 1 ) A short point is involved in this appeal. The appellant filed a regular suit for recovery of Rs. 1,54,100. 00 being the principal amount and interest due on it. The basis for the suit was promissory note allegedly executed by the defendant on 7-9-94 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant in his written statement denied the liability and contended that the plaintiff as well as the marginal witness were strangers to him. He termed the promissory note as rank forgery . The following issues were framed for trial. (1) Whether the suit pronote dated 7-9-84 for Rs. 1,00,000. 00 (one lakh) is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant? (2) Whether the defendant is an agriculturist entitling to the benefits under Act IV of 1938? (3) To what relief?on two different occasions two more written statements were filed and two additional issues were framed on 9-2-95;"additional issues dated. 9-2-95: (1) Whether the suit pronote is vitiated by material alteration? (2) To what relief?"the trial Court found that the execution of the document i. e. , pronote was not proved, therefore dismissed the suit.

( 2 ) THERE are certain admitted facts and cert