IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Court should not discharge duty of handwriting expert.
2. In examining disputed signature, true test is not extent of similarities, but nature and extent of dissimilarities.

R. Banumathi, J.—This second appeal arises out of judgment in AS No.1 of 2005 reversing judgment of the Trial Court in OS No.163 of 2004 and thereby decreeing that suit, directing the defendant to pay Rs. 64,413 along with subsequent interest and costs.

2. Unsuccessful defendant in the appellant.

3. Case of plaintiff is that defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.18,000 on 10.5.1988 and a sum of Rs. 19,3000 on 10.9.1988 from plaintiff and executed Ex. A1 and Ex.A3 Promissory Notes on the same date agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Defendant paid a sum of Rs. 500 towards interest on 3.2.2001 and made endorsement (Ex.A2) in the first promissory note and paid a sum of Rs. 500 towards second promissory note for the paid payment of interest on 17.3.2001 and made endorsement (Ex.A4) to that effect. Stating that in spite of repeated demands defendant did not pay the amount, plaintiff filed Suit O.S. No.61 of 2002 for recovery of Rs. 52,686 along with subsequent interest and cost.

4. Defendant resisted the suit denying having approached the plaintiff for financial help to meet his family expenses and to discharge his family debts. Defendant had not denied execution of his signatures in Ex. A1 and Ex. A3 Promissory Notes. But, according to defendant, he was conducting a chit and plaintiff joined as subscriber in two chits and plaintiff was successful bidder in 10th and 20th chits and after the chit, defendant was not in a position to pay the chit amount to the plaintiff immediately and at the instance of plaintiff, defendant signed two blank stamped promissory notes. Defendant further averred that within two years, defendant paid the entire chit amount to plaintiff and when asked for return of promissory notes, plaintiff stated that promissory notes were misplaced and assured that he would return the same as and when he finds promissory notes. According to defendant, because of assurance given by plaintiff, defendant did not insist for any receipt. Defendant specifically denied Ex. A2 and Ex. A4 endorsements and according to him those endorsements are forged and fabricated. Defendant further averred that because of enmity, plaintiff has filed the suit based on the forged endorsements.

5. On the above pleadings, five issues were framed in the Trial Court. On issues 1 and 3, Trial Court held that since execution of promissory note is admitted by defendant, presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act is available to the plaintiff and issues 1 and 3 answered accordingly. In so far as the genuineness of Ex. A2 and A4 endorsements. Trial Court itself compared the disputed signatures of the defendant (Ex. A2 and Ex. A4) and held that there is variance between the disputed signatures and admitted signatures of the defendant which is visible to the naked eye and issue No.2 was answered accordingly. The Trial Court further held that if Ex. A 2 and Ex. A4 endorsements are eschewed from evidence the suits would be compared by limitation and to those findings. Trial Court dismissed the suit.

6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of suit, plaintiff filed A.S. No.1 of 2005 on the file of Sub-Court, Arni. The Lower Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court that in view of admission of execution of promissory notes, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be raised in favour of the plaintiff. Lower Appellate Court held that it is for the defendant to adduce evidence-rebutting the statutory presumption raised under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In so far as the endorsement, on comparison of disputed signatures of the defendant with his admitted signatures. Lower Appellate Court expressed its view that there is no variance in the signatures and on Issue No.3, Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal holding that the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim along with interest and costs.

7. Bein