The present respondent had filed an original suit in O.S.No.79/2005, in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Somwarpet, (henceforth for brevity referred to as “the trial Court”) against the present appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs.45,543/- with interest thereupon.

2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court was that, the plaintiff on the request of the defendant had given him a loan of Rs.30,000/- on 17.8.1998 upon the defendant executing a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the said loan amount along with interest thereupon at 17% p.a. In spite of repeated demands and even after issuance of a legal notice, the defendant failed to repay the loan amount, as such, the plaintiff was constrained to institute a suit against him for recovery of money.

3. In response to the notice served upon him, the defendant appeared through his counsel and has filed written statement totally denying the plaint averments regarding borrowing of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff and also execution of promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest thereupon. Apart from denying his alleged liability towards the plaintiff, the defendant also contended that the documents produced by plaintiff is a rank forgery which does not bear his signature.

4. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has raised a loan to a tune of Rs.30,000/- and in this regard, executed Promissory Note to repay the same?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has agreed to pay interest at 17% p.a. to the above said loan amount?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

4. What order or decree?

5. In support of his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and got examined one more witness as PW-2. He has also got produced and marked the documents from Exs.P-1 to P-6. Defendant got himself examined as DW-1 and got the documents marked from Exs.D-1 and D-2.

6. The trial Court after hearing both side and considering the material placed before it, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and by its judgment and decree dated 6.7.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Madikeri (henceforth for brevity referred to as “the First Appellate Court”) under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in R.A. No. 40/2007. The respondent therein appeared before the Court and contested the matter.

8. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiff proved that the defendant has borrowed loan of Rs.30,000/- in his favour and executed pronote, agreeing to repay the same?

2. Whether the plaintiff proved that the defendant used to describe himself as K.E. Subbaiah, S/o Erappa, on occasions?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

4. Whether the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is required to be interfered with?

5. What order or decree?

The First Appellate Court after hearing, answered point Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative and by its judgment and decree dated 15.12.2011, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in O.S.No.79/2005 and directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- with interest thereupon at 17% p.a. from 17.8.1998 till the date of suit and 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation to the plaintiff.

9. It is against the said judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the defendant has preferred this appeal.

10. This Court while admitting this appeal, framed the following substantial question of law :

“Whether the First Appellate Court committed a wrong in not adopting the well established principles of law for appreciation of evidence and er