( 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 certain disputed facts. It may not be necessary for us to go into the disputed facts because what we are going to state hereinafter would show that the case can be finally decided on the basis of the admitted facts.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant- plaintiff submits that forgery was taken as a defence but when the appellant made an application to send the document for comparison of signatures to an expert it was rejected by the Court. The learned Counsel for the respondent however submits that, in view of the evidence recorded by the trial court the decree could have not been passed as the pronote itself was not a legal tender. We are confining ourselves to the questions as to whether the pronote was a legal tender 2001 (6) (R) -F-7 and whether on the facts the execution of the document was proved.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff in his statement recorded before the Court submitted: "the contents of ex. A-1 are not read over to me after it was filled up. I also did not ask to read over the contents of Ex. A-1 to me. The defendant took and counted the amount. Then the defendant took over a printed pronote from his bag and filled it in his own handwriting. He affixed the stamps and signed on it. The pronote was handed over to P. W. 2. P. W. 2 after going through the contents of Ex. A-1 attested it. One Narasayya came there at the time when I put the money on the table of p. W. 2 Narasayya is also an employee in the office of P. W. 2. P. W. 2 after Ex. A-1, delivered it to the defendant. Then the defendant gave Ex. A-1 to the said Narasayya and Narasayya attested it and gave it to defendant. I cannot say whether Narsayya has verified the contents of Ex. A-1 before attesting. The defendant delivered the pronote to me. I have gone through the contents of Ex. A-1 at that time, and found some columns of Ex. A-1 were not filled up. Ex. A-1 was not filled up in respect of the columns of my name, my father s name and my village. But I did not return the pronote to the defendant for complying the above objections. I simply asked the defendant about the blank columns, but the defendant told me to fill up the columns myself, but I did not. Later I filled up the blank columns, i. e. , my name and address particulars ten days before filing of the case. At another stage, P. W. 1 stated that he gave the amount under Ex. A-1 in the office of P. W. 2, but he did not know the locality where the office was situated. P. W. 2 who is the marginal witness, in whose office allegedly the document was executed and consideration was paid also stated. "the plaintiff asked the defendant as to why his name etc, particulars in Ex. A-1 were not filled up. The defendant informed him that he could fill up whenever he wants. When the plaintiff looked at me I confirmed the same. Thereafter t